Talk:Cellophane

message: Most "cling film" (i.e. plastic food wrap) I've ever seen has said it's made of PVC, not cellulose...? Tjwood 18:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right (although there are non-PVC versions, which are still not made of cellulose). I changed the article. --Heron 21:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cling film

message: With one noticeable exception, every punctuation mark in this article is either a comma or an exclamation point. --67.171.78.104 00:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Punctuation

message: From the page:
"It is also used in the making of bendy rulers, although it is not common."
Strange line to end the article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.106.168 (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, I was all like, wuuuut?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text: According to the article, it has a relatively low permeability to liquid water, but not water vapors (moisture). Materialscientist (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  lol 

message: I disagree with this statement: "The word cellophane has become genericized in the US ... However, in the UK and in many other countries it is still a registered trademark and the property of Innovia Films Ltd."
The implication here is that "Cellophane" is not a generic term in the UK, when it most definitely is. It may still be a registered trademark, but it is widely used to refer to any type of film wrapping, which I thought was the very definition of a genericized trademark. The reference cited is 27 years old.
86.132.58.253 (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genericised Trademark in the UK 

message: Are you sure that the printed bag is cellophane?  It's much more likely to be PET film.
82.33.164.165 (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Is cellophane a plastic? The article should clarify this point.
How can an ordinary person test a piece to see if it is really cellophane,
instead of some other ordinary clear plastic?
Real cellophane seems to have very poor resistance to tearing;
the article should discuss this aspect.
-96.237.4.73 (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is cellophane a plastic? 

message: The article claims:
: "cellophane itself is 100% biodegradable"
What is the source/proof of this?
Under what conditions does it biodegrade?
How long does it take?
-96.237.4.73 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fair to assume that cellophane will degrade somewhat harmlessly under some conditions, if you wait long enough. But I don't think that is enough to claim "100% biodegradable". I'm inclined to think that claim requires that it degrades sufficiently under fairly ordinary composting conditions, in a reasonable amount of time. What is most at issue is whether it degrades under typical home compost pile conditions, and how long it takes. -71.174.176.121 (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  biodegradable 

message: The article implies that cellophane is the current base material of Scotch Tape.
This may have been true far in the past, but it seems very dubious that it would be true in modern times.
The Scotch Tape article does not seem to agree with this article.
-96.237.4.73 (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotch Tape 

message: * www.collectingcandy.com/wordpress/?p=1228
: "The other major issue with cellophane is wear-and-tear over time and damage from initial opening.
:More than any other wrapper type, cello wrappers seem to only open through a destructive series of tears.   It’s tough to open a cello wrapper without causing it to rip, and once that rip starts, it can’t be stopped.
:When you find an older cello package – it’s not unusual to find all manner of deformations and destruction."
The article should say much more about the physical characteristics. Cellophane is not stretchy and is quite fragile compared to modern plastic films. In particular, it has very poor resistance to tear propagation. -96.233.19.113 (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor tear resistance 

message: http://cjonline.com/news/business/2016-05-18/japanese-firm-invest-30-million-tecumseh-cellophane-plant-last-plant-its# • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  News 

message: An environmentally friendly alternative to the viscose process exists and it is used to produce Lyocell (rayon). Any consensus on if it can be used to produce cellophane as well? Frisbii (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Impacts 

message: I just altered a sentence that read "in some countries X, but in some countries Y" because it semi-implies there is a third possibility, Z. Now it reads like -- generic in some countries and trademarked in others.  
But is more precise to just say it is a trademarked term in some countries but generic "in the rest of the world" or "everywhere else" or maybe better still "every other place where the term is used"? Arbalest Mike (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement in lede re: "some countries" generic vs. trademarked 

message: The article starts with " Its low permeability to air, oils, greases, bacteria, and water makes it useful for food packaging." But later on it says "Cellophane is the most popular material for manufacturing cigar packaging; its permeability to moisture makes cellophane the perfect product for this application as cigars must be allowed to "breathe" while in storage."  I think the first statement is the correct one.  See - "Cellophane is a transparent film made from cellulose that has low permeability to oxygen, moisture, oil, grease, and bacteria." from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/cellophane - Or maybe it depends on the type of cellophane - "Initial versions of cellophane were waterproof, but not moisture-proof. So, while it was effective for wrapping products like candy and cigarettes, it wasn’t effective for packaging fresh food. In 1927, DuPont developed moisture-proof cellophane" - from https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/06/26/how-cellophane-changed-the-way-we-shop-for-food/ twfowler (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is because it has low permeability, not zero permeability. It is low enough for food wrapping purposes, but has enough permeability for cigar breathability purposes. — al-Shimoni (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Permiability

message: I am a newbie at this, so I'd like for someone with moderate experience to take a look at the "Branding" section. At the end of the section, it says <ref name="gc">. I'm don't want to outright delete it, but it's obvious that it shouldn't be there. I'm suspecting that it is a link to a citation that was incorrectly entered in the source code. Like I said, I'm not sure how to fix this, so some help would be appreciate. It is of upmost importance to me that we fix the "cellophane" Wikipedia page! (Not really)
MatthewMcFly (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further assistance required. 

message: I've removed the following sentence from the Branding section (added on 5 November 2022 by ):
This may belong in the history section (it's hard to tell how significant they were without a source), but the sentence doesn't make any specific claim about the Cellophane brand.
I've also replaced the (only) reference in the section, as it was a dead link. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branding section 

message: What is the meaning of this term in the context it is used in the lead? It either needs  explanation, or a link to somewhere it is explained.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Regenerated"