| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Formaldehyde article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Formaldehyde poisoning" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Formaldehyde poisoning to this article. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 21#Formaldehyde poisoning until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Comments from those with subject knowledge would be particularly useful to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
History? Discovery?
editIs it just me or is there nothing about its discovery or historical uses anywhere? Fairly unusual for instrumental substances. No doubt someone will inevitably want this information preserved enough to include. Hehehehe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterraptor (talk • contribs) 22:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Verification failed
editIt is said: "Formaldehyde" was first used as a generic trademark in 1893 following a previous trade name, "formalin"., and it is referenced with the Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/formalin article[1], and it is said in there, that the trademark emerged in 1893 was 'formalin' not 'formaldehyde'. But if you compare it with the Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/formaldehyde article[2], you will see, that the word 'formaldehyde' emerged in 1872, and it isn't specified that the word was a trademark (neither generic nor simple). Please figure this out.
References
NFPA
editHow is that possible for formaldehyde: Reactivity = 0 and is CORROSIVE? Tosha Langue (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Tosha Langue Check out the NFPA 704 article. The Fire Diamond's "reactivity" is more about "how likely it is to burn or blow up when heated or hit". It [probably just the 37% solution] is okay in this regard. When it comes to what formalin does to skin, it certainly counts as "corrosive". Artoria2e5 🌉 00:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)