Talk:Siloxane

message: I don't know where somebody came up with putting siloxane in McDonalds food, it would be interesting if true but there needs to be a reference, I think it's BS.
*A siloxane-based polymer (dimethylpolysiloxane) is used as an anti-foaming agent in many commercially fried foods - see McDonald's List of Ingredients. -- MarcoTolo 21:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: McDonalds

message: Should these two pages just merge? I'm not familiar enough with silicon chemistry to say if there's a subtle difference in common usage that's significant enough to justify separate pages, but the definitions seem to be the same. 
Elmundomike 16:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Siloxanes are a general class of compounds, of which the polymerized silicones are an example. I don't see a particularly pressing reason to merge them - did you have something particular in mind? -- MarcoTolo (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silicone vs. siloxane 

message: Can anyone say if cyclotetrasiloxane,cyclopentasiloxane etc actually have H as the R groups, or are these just alternative names for dimethyl siloxanes ? - Rod57 (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  cyclo siloxanes  

message: Just to make sure it was intentional, User:Smokefoot removed this picture :File:Boron Siloxane.JPG in the most recent set of edits, thus orphaning it. Not that it is a big deal, since it is on the commons.--Jorfer (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image removal 

message: I don't think that cyclic polydimethylsiloxanes do really need to have their own article. The Siloxane article not too long yet. --Leyo 13:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Cyclomethicone]] into this article 

message: Substituted at 06:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: In Wikipedia practice, the "Not to be confused with" line at the beginning of an article is for articles with similar-sounding titles, not for related concepts; let me therefore remove the line.  The related silicones are also mentioned and linked in the article already, so we're not losing any navigability, too.–Jérôme (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Not to be confused with'' 

message: https://www.makingcosmetics.com/Silicone-Glycol-Cyclosiloxane_p_876.html Wikistallion (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  example 

message: According to Chemical Abstracting Service, 95,141 articles, patents, reports have been published on "silicone" as of today. 49,484 have appeared in the past 20 years, corresponding to slightly more than 6 reports per day.  Should we update daily?  Should Wikipedia aspire to list the 95,000 reports?  
We are all victime to the vastness of the scientific literature on what might be called big topics.  The solution comes from these observations:
*Wikipedia is not a technical journal, it is an encyclopedia.  It relies on what? General sources, hence WP:SECONDARY and in some big topics, WP:TERTIARY.  
If one consults the review literature, 42 reviews have appeared in the previous 20 years on "silicones" and "environment".  Many of these reviews can be seen as obscure, but some are more highly cited.  Otherwise we are cherry-picking from the 95,000, which seems to invite trouble.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, however what is in that edit has not been on the page. I think the "Literature" section should be removed, but the paragraph in the Safety and environmental considerations section should remain. As you point out there are many, many, many, publishments on the general topic, but these (are the first that I see here) that specifically talk about its use in RNG. --NearMiddayNight Feel free to come talk with me. 02:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  As stated in my comment when undoing the additions by IP user from Portland, I noticed that all five cited publications as well as the two additions to the Literature section were from the same author (Nitin Nair). Instead of pushing one author's publications, we need to discuss this section first and then possibly re-write it based on more balanced literature (favorably review articles). --Leyo 22:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont get what you mean by balanced literature. Nitin Nair's papers have been cited by many people including Christoph rucker whom you have conveniently put in the literature section. These article are a genuine health concern for siloxanes and need to be made public. Nitin Nair' paper is the first to highlight this problem in USA and India and many EU countries have also cited them. As the user Nearmiddaynight has mentioned this is one of the pioneering study of harmful effects of siloxane. There are other publications that came out of it and therefore it is a general source for knowledge on harmful effect of siloxane  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.173.100 (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a gut-feeling that you might have a COI concerning Nitin Nair's work. Since your addition is partly about health-related issues, WP:MEDRS should be considered. --Leyo 22:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: How many and which of the 95,141 articles on silicones should we cite?