Jump to content

Talk:Carbon fibers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 2014

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. While there is general recognition that the current title is not ideal, there is not consensus to move the page over a redirect that points elsewhere. If a move is still desired, I suggest a more focused discussion on the proper target of the redirect first, perhaps at WP:RfD; note that although "RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes," "for more difficult cases" it also "can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point." A subsequent request would have more chance of achieving consensus if the target were pointing here. Dekimasuよ! 18:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon (fiber) → Carbon fiber – The article uses "carbon fiber" throughout. Because this isn't about a fiber called carbon, but about a fibre made of carbon. – Srnec (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, since this is first of all about a redirect page (Carbon fiber) it is about primary topic before terminology. Page views show that people searching "Carbon fiber" on the wiki are looking for Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer, since "Carbon fiber" in all uses but technical ones is synonymous with the composite.
For my part Carbon (fiber) can be moved to whatever you feel most accurate (I agree the current page name isn't satisfactory), but Carbon fiber should remain a redirect as it is now. – Cloverleaf II (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your stats are wrong, because you used British spelling. You meant Carbon (fiber) with 18,420 hits this month. The redirects have 1408 + 4724 hits this month, so most folks don't get to the CFRP page by searing for "carbon fiber/re" on site. Srnec (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I still dispute the requested move though: since neither article has prevalence over the other, Carbon fiber should be made into a disambiguation page. – Cloverleaf II (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, carbon filament currently redirects to incandescent_light_bulb#Filament; the filament DAB page redirects to, among other things, fiber. See also wiktionary:filament. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you dispute the current primary topic of "carbon filament" ? (the light bulb filament) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing that there is no primary topic for carbon filament just as there is no primary topic for filament. This clears the way for carbon (fiber) (an article about "loose or woven carbon filament" according to its hatnote) to carbon filament. WP:PTOPIC says that the primary topic should be the "topic sought when a reader searches for that term" (i.e. "carbon fiber" = carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer) or the term with "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" (i.e. carbon (fiber), a "loose or woven carbon filament"). The primary topic criteria point to different topics, thus there is no primary topic for carbon fiber and I oppose the assigning of one by this move. --Kkmurray (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no primary topic for carbon filament, then you would be assigning one by moving this article there, instead of having a disambiguation page there as well as at this title. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. It would have to be carbon fiber (filament). --Kkmurray (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's another article on the composite: carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. This one is, or ought to be, on the fibers. Maproom (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note So I think the issue we are having in this discussion that makes it harder to get a sense of consensus is that this is really on two separate decisions. I think almost none of the participants here disagree with the nominator's argument that the current title of Carbon (fiber) is inaccurate and that a title of Carbon fiber would be better. What we do not agree on, however, is whether or not this subject is the primary intended article for those searching the term "carbon fiber" and therefore whether a disambiguator will be needed. Do I understand this correctly?--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are three choices: A) There is no primary topic for carbon fiber, B) The primary topic of carbon fiber is the current carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer because it is the "topic sought when a reader searches for that term", or C) The primary topic is of carbon fiber is the current carbon (fiber) because that is the term with "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value". The current situation is B and the requested move is C. Option A is also available as a compromise but it raises some additional naming issues. --Kkmurray (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I know nothing of this topic but the title does not match usage in the article. The usage has community support so the title should match the content. There should be disambiguation if there is another usage of the term "carbon fiber". Perhaps this article should be called "carbon fiber (whatever)" if another substance is the primary topic for carbon fiber, but I think it is established at least that sources call this material "carbon fiber". Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The composite currently using "carbon fiber" (carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer) is another usage of the term. That carbon fiber is the one people mean when they talk about carbon fiber in car magazines and aviation magazines and spaceflight magazines and boating magazines (except for sailcloth). This article's carbon fiber (fiber) is a component of that article's carbon fiber (composite). When they talk about "carbon fiber" in design and fashion, it means the appearance of the composite, which may not use any carbon fiber at all, just the look, so is a third meaning. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are these magazines reliable sources for our articles on either carbon fibre or CFRP? These usages are jargon and I don't see why they should force us into an awkward title, like your proposed carbon fiber (fiber), when the plain meaning of "carbon fibre" is fibres made of carbon and that is how our best reliable sources use it. Srnec (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, Flight International, Air Transport World, Aviation Week, Janes Defence Weekly, etc are considered RS. So are Car and Driver, Road and Track, Motortrend, Automobile, etc. Further, as secondary sources, they are considered better sources to use for articles than primary sources are. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't ask if they were reliable sources. (I asked if they were RS for these articles, although I should have said, for determining primary usage.) Specifically, do they distinguish between carbon fibre and CFRP? If they don't, I don't see how their usage can be relevant (on its own) for determining the proper title. At best, they indicate how one of the terms is used in certain contexts—but that is only part of a case for establishing primary usage. If we are debating whether Pluto primarily refers to the planet or the god, we cannot cite a bunch classicists who don't mention the planet to show that the god is primary usage.
            I am not advocating primary sources. See the sources I cited above or G. M. Jenkins and K. Kawamura, Polymeric Carbons: Carbon Fibre, Glass and Char; G. Savage, Carbon–Carbon Composites; D. D. L. Chung, Carbon Fiber Compositse; P. Morgan, Carbon Fibers and their Composites; or J.-B. Donnet, S. Rebouillat, T. K. Wang and J. C. M. Peng (eds.), Carbon Fibers, 3rd ed. Not one of these is a primary source; they are all secondary. They are all RS. And good ones. Srnec (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The primary meaning of carbon fiber is carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer, so the current redirect is correct. Agree that the name carbon {fiber) is wrong, but the current proposal is not the way to fix it. Andrewa (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence? Even a plain Google search turns up:
    1. "Carbon fiber is basically very thin strands of carbon" at howstuffworks.com
    2. "Carbon fiber has become a popular reinforcement in the composites industry" at fibreglast.com
    3. "Carbon fiber is, exactly what it sounds like – fiber made of carbon" at composite.about.com
    4. "The raw material used to make carbon fiber is called the precursor. About 90% of the carbon fibers produced are made from polyacrylonitrile (PAN)." from zoltek.com
    Those are in the top ten. Add to it a youtube.com video about making carbon fibres and our two articles and what primary usage are you talking about? Do your Google results differ? (I've already cited plenty of reliable secondary sources above.) Srnec (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't say exactly what your plain Google search is, but here is mine [1] and my first hit is http://www.carbonrev.com/ (yes, your results probably do vary) which is clearly about the composite material not just the bare fiber. Second hit was https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAdVO8Rkv6c and is again about manufacturing carbon fiber parts, referring to the composite, using carbon fiber reinforcing material to mean the bare fiber. As to your numbered evidence, I assume that howstuffworks.com means this page, it contains the text you quote but you only seem to have read the first few words, because it continues for example Replacing steel components with carbon fiber would reduce the weight of most cars by 60 percent... again referring to the composite material, not the bare fiber. Provide the actual URLs for the others you seem to cite but don't and I'll check them too, but I think it's pointless trying to guess what you mean by the rest when the first two checks completely fail to support your claims. Andrewa (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I modify your URL from .com.au to .ca, I get this. It is not quite the same as my last search. I have no idea how Google works, which is why I didn't waste time posting URLs. You are right about the YouTube video. You are wrong about the howstuffworks page. It clearly treats "carbon fibre" as the fibre, even in the sentence you quoted. See also: "To make carbon fiber take on a permanent shape, it can be laid over a mold, then coated with a stiff resin or plastic". Here is the about.com page. It distinguishes clearly "carbon fiber" and the composite. Here is the Zoltek page. The pimary meaning used by these websites in that of the fibre. There is nothing here, for example, that contradicts it. Srnec (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't understand how Google works, all the more reason to give your search URLs. The howstuffworks page, in the quote I gave, is not treating "carbon fibre" as the fibre. It talks of Replacing steel components with carbon fiber. Do you really believe that you can replace steel with bare carbon fibre? Remind me never to travel in a car you've modified! It's the composite that replaces the steel, not the bare fibre. Actually, when I think of it, taken to its conclusion such cars would be ultra-safe... they'd never make it out of the workshop, they'd just sit there in a floppy heap. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it is not unusual to say "X is made of Y" in English when X is not made only of Y, and given the first paragraph, which is all about carbon fibers, I take the sentence in question to mean "Replacing steel components with carbon fiber[-based components] would reduce the weight of most cars by 60 percent." Two sentences earlier it says, "To make carbon fiber take on a permanent shape, it can be laid over a mold, then coated with a stiff resin or plastic". This is what the reader has in mind when he gets to the sentence about steel vs CF. The later sentence "In fact, Formula One race cars are all carbon fiber..." is a case in point: they are not all carbon fiber, although at this point the author has shifted to using CF as a short-form for CFRP. Still, racecars are not all CFRP. The primary meaning is the one that should answer the question "What is carbon fiber" to somebody who doesn't know. Here is how Formula One tackles it. Here is an article from Car and Driver that jumps between meanings of carbon fiber: in the first paragraph "CF" is obviously the composite, yet later we "CF cloth" and "bond between  the CF and the resin", where it means the fibres. Srnec (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 21 March 2015

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No clear consensus to make this move as requested, however there does appear to be good rationale in this discussion to adjust the titles of this and related articles, redirects, dabs etc. to provide more clarity for readers on this complex subject. I would encourage someone to take the initiative to start a new RM laying out a solution that reflects the most cogent arguments and alternatives discussed in this RM. Don’t rehash old ground but instead give editors a good enough solution to discuss and resolve, giving the closer a clear solution if indeed there is consensus to make a move. Mike Cline (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Carbon (fiber) → Carbon fiber – The current title is misleading. This isn't about a fiber called carbon, but about a fibre made of carbon. The proposed new title currently redirects to carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP), which is a composite material made of carbon fibers. Although the latter is sometimes called "carbon fiber", this is a case of slang or jargon and results in the suboptimal title we have for this article. An analogous case is that glass fiber, which is about fibers of glass, and fiberglass, which is about the composite material composed of glass fibers.
As an encyclopedia we should should answer the question "What is carbon fiber?" straightforwardly. How do other reference works do that? The Oxford Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering defines carbon fibre as "a filament reinforcement used in composites". The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea starts its entry by saying "carbon fibre is mainly produced by separating a chain of carbon atoms from polyacrynitrile through heating and oxidation". There are many book-length treatments of carbon fiber and CFRP. All of the following treat "carbon fiber" as referring to fibers of carbon and not to their composites: G. M. Jenkins and K. Kawamura, Polymeric Carbons: Carbon Fibre, Glass and Char; G. Savage, Carbon–Carbon Composites; D. D. L. Chung, Carbon Fiber Compositse; P. Morgan, Carbon Fibers and their Composites; or J.-B. Donnet, S. Rebouillat, T. K. Wang and J. C. M. Peng (eds.), Carbon Fibers, 3rd ed. But it isn't only specialist sources that take "carbon fiber" to mean the fiber. Here is an article from Car and Driver. Here is how a Formula 1 resource explains it. Here is about.com. Here is How Stuff Works. Here is Zoltek. They all start with the basic sense of "carbon fiber": fibers made of carbon.
Both this article and the one on the composite were viewed about 60,000 times in the last 90 days. See here and here. The redirect was viewed about 14,000 times. Switching the hatnote from one article to another will not greatly inconvenience users.relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Strong oppose This is not the primary topic of "carbon fiber", the composite is the primary topic of "carbon fiber". We discussed this the last time. It is not slang to call the composite "carbon fiber", it is common parlance used by the public at large and industry. Rather, the technical material covered by this article is not what the public knows as carbon fiber, nor what most carbon fiber products are primarily referring to. The composite is. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – The common term as a composite derives its name from the material discussed in this article; to argue that the original name is displaced by common usage (or "common parlance") is nonsense. This is an encyclopaedia, not a common usage dictionary. The redirect Carbon fiber should become a DAB page. The current title must change: it does not adhere to naming policies; just because there is another meaning laying claim to the name should is a terrible argument against a rename. Anyone opposing this proposed rename must come up with a name for this article that adheres to naming policies; otherwise I consider their oppose vote as being unconstructively obstructionist. Also, look at Carbon-fiber-reinforced_polymer#Properties: it says "In CFRP the reinforcement is carbon fiber, which provides the strength." That should be linked to this article, yet by the argument opposing the rename, that sentence should be rewritten with a different phrase? Are we to pretend that "carbon fiber" does not also mean the material covered by this article? —Quondum 05:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. While people talk widely of "carbon fibre" they generally do not care or specify whether they are referencing the composite material CFRP or the reinforcement alone. Fibres can be used in other matrixes, for example glass fibre is sometimes used to reinforce cement rather than plastics. Nobody would think that a worker talking of adding "glass fibre" to the cement mix was suggesting that resin be poured in. Similarly, I believe that carbon fibres have been used to reinforce metal matrices. If the popular usage were precise then that would be a different matter, but it is not: Wikipedia should not be treating it as a barrier to correct technical naming. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the closed discussion above. The current consensus is that the primary topic of carbon fiber is carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because it is the "topic sought when a reader searches for that term". A very good argument can be made for the primary topic of carbon fiber being the current carbon (fiber) because that is the term with "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value", but that doesn't seem to be the consensus. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the previous closing conclusion of "no consensus" really support an "oppose"? And is the current consensus really as you state it? ;) —Quondum 16:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is not set in stone, it can be overturned. One could say that this second RFC is to test whether that needs doing here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the consensus: carbon fiber should be a DAB page. I also disagree with the proposed move: if there is a primary topic, it is carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, instead of DAB I recommend merging carbon (fiber) and carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. There is significant overlap between these two articles and a well-constructed merged article could easily support the polymer chemistry as well as the properties and applications of carbon fiber filaments and things made from those filaments. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – This article is about fibers made of carbon. The title should match; "Carbon fiber" is a simpler title and better, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the material is the crucial thing. But honestly, the best solution is probably to merge and have a WP:CONCEPTDAB like football Red Slash 22:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, I agree with the nominator's logic. This is about fiber made of carbon, not about carbon in itself. JIP | Talk 07:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The current title is simply indefensible; the proper name for the topic is "Carbon fiber", and certainly not just "Carbon". That it has been hijacked by a colloquial use by a related product should not be of encyclopedic concern: WP:COMMONNAME is not a suicide pact, and redirecting "carbon fiber" to the composite defeats WP:PRECISION. Also, I would strongly oppose making a WP:DAB or WP:CONCEPTDAB; although merge does seem attractive I think the topics are distinct enough to warrant separate treatment. No such user (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fiberglass is about the composite, not the glass fibers, this is an analogous situation. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure who you're responding to. Nonetheless: glass fibers are described in – surprise – glass fiber. As far as I know, nobody uses the term fiberglass for glass fibers, (and, according to typical English morphology, fiberglass would be 'glass made of fibers', which is apt) so I don't see an analogous situation. The composite made with carbon fibers is not called carbonglass or like. No such user (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Interestingly, glass fiber is a page about fibers made out of glass and glass (fiber) redirects to fiberglass. A Fiberglass → Glass fiber move request is here: Talk:Glass_fiber#Requested_move and the rationale can be applied to carbon fiber by replacing "glass" with "carbon": "Either material is known as fiberglass [carbon fiber], but the composite is much more commonly referred to as that, as it is a versatile multi-purpose construction material used in many industries, whereas the glass [carbon] fibers themselves have relatively few niche uses". --Kkmurray (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom's proposal (per nom and most of the above). Also okay with Carbon fiber as a WP:CONCEPTDAB. It's unfortunate that carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer is what the general public usually think "carbon fiber" means, but the exact opposite is the case in higher-quality technical material, which uses the more precise phrase, so the previous WP:PRIMARYTOPIC analysis was faulty, essentially declaring car magazines and the like more reliable than engineering and chemistry texts. We have a case where two meanings share the same WP:COMMONNAME for different audiences and in different kinds of sources, so we have no primary topic for WP purposes. I agree, regardless, that "carbon (fiber)" implies a fiber named carbon, or (as someone in older discussion noted), carbon in the general context of "fiber" whatever that context might be. Meanwhilel, a fiber made of carbon is a "carbon fiber". WP:NATURAL policy contraindicates a parenthetical like "carbon (fiber)" when we do not have to use one. Even if it didn't, this "carbon (fiber)" one is confusing, so it just utterly fails at the purpose of disambiguation, by simply introducing a worse ambiguity, with at least three obvious, conflicting interpretations. NB: Regardless of outcome, the Commonwealth-spelled "fibre" versions of all these titles should redirect to the "fiber" versions correctly (or vice versa, per WP:ENGVAR, where "fibre" was originally used in an article).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Additionally, move Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer to Carbon fiber (composite) per WP:COMONNNAME.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carbon fiber (fiber) would fix the issue of the current article title. (as the other is carbon fiber (composite), but as it is the primary topic in the vast majority of carbon fiber uses in actual things/items/objects, "carbon fiber" is the composite) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carbon fiber (fiber) would be redundant. Carbon fiber (composite) is a good disambiguated name for the other article, with this one being simply at "Carbon fiber", with {{About|the fiber|the composite material made with the fiber|Carbon fiber (composite)}} at the top. This is also an acceptable result to me, in addition to the two options I already !voted for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • SMcCandlish at the top of the present Carbon (fibre) page is the hatnote: {{About|loose or woven carbon filament|the rigid composite material made from carbon fiber used in aerospace and other applications|Carbon fiber reinforced polymer}} I personally think that this may be sufficient. I am also unsure whether or not there are other forms of "Carbon-fiber-composite materials". I think that "Carbon fibre (fibre)" sounds and looks ridiculous. If a WP:CONCEPTDAB has to be used I'd suggest Carbon fibre (constituent of composites) which, as far as I know, fits WP:PRECISE. I have not heard of any uses for single carbon fibres. The other title can stay as it is otherwise Carbon fibre (composites) or Carbon fibre (composite materials) might present the range of topics covered. GregKaye 12:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Firstly, the problem that's led to this discussion is that "carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer" (with the proper hyphenation of a compound adjective, or without it) is not the WP:COMMONNAME of that material, but a technical jargon name. The common name really is "carbon fiber", which is also the common name of the carbon fibers from which the composite material is made and from which the imprecise common name of the composite derives by the extension of sloppy language use in less technical sources. Thus the need to disambiguate. The simplest solution really is having the article about the fiber (or a CONCEPTDAB) be at the title "carbon fiber", as the PRIMARYTOPIC, and the name of the secondary, derived composite disambiguated, e.g. as "carbon fiber (composite)". Secondly, CONCEPTDABs don't work that way; they are not themselves disambiguated with a mess like "Carbon fibre (constituent of composites)", something no one is ever going to search for. They sit at simple names like "carbon fiber" (fibre, whatever), and disambiguate between various topics to which the name applies, to help people find what they're looking for and what the difference is. They simply do so at more prose length than a simple disambiguation page would. Finally, having a "Carbon fibre (constituent of composites)" page and "Carbon fiber (composite)" page would still leave open the question "where should Carbon fiber itself go?", meaning we would have solved nothing at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

          PS: Material science is working at the nanotechnological level these days, so there very probably are uses for single carbon fibers; I'm not sure what that really had to do with anything, though.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I find the argument that the composite is the primary topic for "Carbon fiber" to be compelling, thus justifying the current situation where Carbon fiber redirects to the article about the composite. As an aside, I would argue the title of that article should be Carbon fiber, as that is the name most commonly used to refer to that topic. But I agree the current title is problematic for the reasons given by the nom. How about Carbon fiber (material)?

    I'm not a fan of conceptdab pages, but in this case, as an alternative to the above, I would support it, per SMcCandlish. --В²C ☎ 20:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Carbon fiber (material)" to me sounds like it's referring to the composite, the material from which we make "carbon fiber" stuff; in fact, it's usually referred to as a "composite material" ("composite" by itself is a shorthand). The fibers themselves seem to me to be more of a "substance" or something like that, than a "material", except perhaps in the strict technical sense used in materials science. But that brings us full circle to the original problem - a term with conflicting (but not unrelated) vernacular and technical meanings - so using "(material)" to disambiguate won't actually disambiguate but just introduce a new ambiguity. The least ambiguous result is to have the actual fiber be, naturally, at "Carbon fiber" and the composite made with these fibers be at "Carbon fiber (composite)". When it comes to this sort of thing, we have to ask ourselves what best serves our readers, and work from there, eschewing technical procedural nitpicks sometimes when necessary, per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR. Clearly, the least ambiguous pair of names that are recognizable is that solution. No clear case for the composite material being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has actually been presented. Rather, good cases have been presented for "carbon fiber" being the WP:COMMONNAME of both topics, and a flawed case was presented in earlier discussion (which reached no consensus, remember) for the composite being primary, based on popularity, at the expense of all other considerations, including quality of sources, the relationship between the topics, the incorrectness of the term as applied to the composite, the availability of a more correct name for the composite (which is and appears to be slated to remain the actual title of that article), and the problems in trying awkwardly to disambiguate not the composite article but the fiber article, with clumsy constructions like "carbon (fiber)", which has at least 3 interpretations, and "carbon fiber (fiber)" which is pointlessly redundant. Going with this article as Carbon fiber and the other as Carbon fiber (composite) (or leaving that one at Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer) would not be some reversal of a recent, previous consensus, but rather actually coming to one, finally.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The best argument for carbon fiber redirecting to carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer is that all but a few of incoming links are aimed at the composite. --Kkmurray (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A look at some of those links is illuminating. From archery: "Shafts of arrows are typically composed of solid wood, bamboo fiberglass, aluminium alloy, carbon fiber, or composite materials." The distinction between fiberglass and "carbon fiber" on the one hand and "composite materials" illustrates a confusion this page move would clarify. Badminton uses "carbon fiber composite" (linked) before it uses (unnecessarily) "carbon fiber". The link at Carbon should link here ("Plastics are made from fossil hydrocarbons, and carbon fiber, made by pyrolysis of synthetic polyester fibers is used to reinforce plastics..."). Carbon nanotube has a hatnote to carbon fiber, but it should be to this page, since a nanotube is more likely to be confused with a fiber than with a composite material. Srnec (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
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.

Requested move 5 August 2015

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 07:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Carbon (fiber) → Carbon fibers – Excuse me, but the current parenthetical disambiguation is ridiculous. This material is never simply called "carbon", that is the chemical element from which it's made. Silent (unspoken) disambiguation is insufficient, because the distinction is too subtle to be understood in context. If we do call it just "carbon", we've much more likely to mean carbon fiber, which redirects to carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. For example, carbon bicycle is shorthand for carbon fiber bicycle. This is one of those rare cases where disambiguation by using the plural form is possible. I believe that "carbon fibers bicycle" would be grammatically incorrect. This is the common name. As evidence of that, the string "carbon fibers" occurs 18 times on this page—not counting this requested move, and 22 times in the article itself. That title is linked from other articles, too: e.g. Arman Sedghi, "known for his scientific achievement in production of low cost carbon fibers." I can't believe this has been through two move requests and a move review, without anyone getting this, though it did take me some time pondering this to get the (carbon filament) to turn on. – Wbm1058 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional note in support: The lead is easy to rewrite for the new title:
    • Carbon fiber, alternatively graphite fiber or CF, is a material consisting of fibers about 5–10 μm in diameter and composed mostly of carbon atoms.
    • Carbon fibers, alternatively graphite fibers or CF, are fibers about 5–10 μm in diameter and composed mostly of carbon atoms.

— Wbm1058 (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, geesh. "In rare circumstances, we ignore the rules here in order to make the encyclopedia better." Per WP:PLURAL.
"Carbon fiber does not exist only as a plural." Yes it does. Because in singular form, it's not carbon fiber. It's carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on items like carbon fibers are not located at awkward, unnatural titles like carbon (fiber). Paraphrasing WP:PLURAL. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no conflict with the carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer meaning either. We wouldn't say a car or a plane was made of carbon fibers, any more than we would say a building was constructed of steels or woods (except maybe Tiger's house ;o) Wbm1058 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The technical way to disambiguate this, going strictly "by the book":
Again, articles on items like carbon fibers are not located at awkward, unnatural titles. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

galvanic corrosion

[edit]

The risk of galvanic corrosion would be good to describe in this article. As a reference, see 2021 article from Corrosion Communications: "Galvanic activity of carbon fiber reinforced polymers and electrochemical behavior of carbon fiber"[2]:

"When an engineering metal is joined to a CFRP in the marine environment, a perfect galvanic corrosion cell will be formed, and the metal will be subjected to galvanic corrosion attack."

I'll kick off the addition by including the above claim and citing the Corrosion Communications article. The article looks like a useful source; it contains an extensive bibliography, and claims it "comprehensively summarizes the existing studies on the galvanic effect of CFRPs on engineering metals." 73.60.233.220 (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You left the article in a state that said carbon fibre is displacing aluminium because of galvanic issues (implying CFRP is good) but that CFRP had galvanic issues (implying CFRP is bad). This is contradictory. I add a clause that said a sealant between the metal and CFRP is required but perhaps it could be worded better.  Stepho  talk  22:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium batteries

[edit]

I noticed that Socialcomplex (talk · contribs) has added some details about lithium batteries but has been reverted each time. I understand that his stated aim of doing this as school homework is not valid - however, as long as it has valid supporting references then his motive for adding is unimportant.. I also note that a small portion of his edits did not have supporting references - those are okay to remove. However, I also see that the bulk of his addition has 7 references to what seem to be valid scientific studies. Is there a reason why this reference addition is being reverted?  Stepho  talk  00:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a couple of them, and the citations don't actually support the statements they're attached to. They're all about using carbon fibers in batteries, that much is true. But they don't make the specific claims they're being attached to. MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which claims did you find that were not supported by the sources? Socialcomplex (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding environmental impact section

[edit]

there is good quality evidence about the environmental impact of it and also possible entry into the human food chain


"fiberglass is harming our coastal marine life"

https://www.marinetechnologynews.com/news/abandoned-fiberglas-boats-harming-603988

Jack Nunn Jacknunn ([[3]]) 17:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carbon_fibers&oldid=1247293681"