Talk:Heat-shrink tubing

There is a preconceived notion in this article and the external link that heat shrink tubing is made of monomers and partially polymerized material. Then by heating the tube, it continues its polymerization. I believe this statement to be completely false.

[advertisement deleted]

If the material is partially polymerized or un-polymerized, how is it that a heat gun operating at a few hundred degrees fahrenheit can polymerize the material after 30 seconds exposure, but an extruder (used to make the tubing) can't polymerize the material at hotter temperatures for sometimes 8-10 minutes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.202.26 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material is polymerized as it is heated during the molding stage. Heat from barrel shear and heaters in the press cause the polyolefin to cross-link during what is called a Cure Cycle. After the product is molded it is then expanded with Hot Oil or Glycerin to enable molding of the pre-desired shape. (this direct from manufacturer www.Nu-Tech.us) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.178.251 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "citation needed" tag (first time I've done that). I have never heard of heat-shrink actually shrinking in volume, it de-stretches as decribed above. If it does polymerise and shrink (which I don't think is plausible for say a 3:1 linear shrink ratio implying 27 times volume shrinkage...) then someone had better provide a reference because it would be pretty rare stuff. Perhaps some special product works like this. Adx (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial links

Recently, references linking to sites of commercial heat shrink suppliers were deleted, here, and again here. One of the owners of these sites has complained in several places, for instance here. To keep the discussion centralised, I am opening this thread in the most appropriate place, the article talk page. It is pretty clear that these sites cannot be considered independent by any stretch of the imagination as their purpose is to sell heat shrink. It is equally clear that the original editor of the passage in question used these sites as sources. The question is therefore, is it reasonable to remove these references while allowing the text to stand? I am not offering an opinion myself for now, let's see what other editors think. SpinningSpark 20:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is one of those cases where we can just leave one link to the company website in External Links? I don't think an article about a specific product can completely dispense with a link to the vendor's website. For example, I can't imagine an article on Microsoft Windows to lack a link to Microsoft's website---in particular, to a page about Windows, which presumably would be geared to sell the product. Would that be considered a spam link? Perhaps, in an extremist interpretation of WP:SPAM, but I wouldn't advocate that. However, sprinkling links to commercial websites for that product (say, if every other paragraph of Microsoft Windows were to link to Windows advocacy websites) is clearly inappropriate. So I'd say a single link at the bottom of the article to the vendor in question should suffice. I wouldn't even put in all of the sites listed above, unless there's a good reason why a single link isn't enough.—Tetracube (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO makes a clear case against turning this into an external link: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should avoid [...] links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services." Yes, we can link to Microsoft on the Windows article, but we shouldn't link to (one of thousands of) commercial heat-shrink vendors on the heat-shrink article.

If the original editor copied any actual word-for-word content from the site, we should definitely cut it. If the editor took any facts or details which aren't available anywhere else in the public domain, we should consider cutting those as well, if the source isn't admissable.

Oddly I can't find an explicit policy that prohibits using clearly commercial links as sources - just a general precedent that we make generic ISBN references rather than citing Amazon URLs. The nearest thing to a no-commercial-references policy I can find is in WP:RS, saying that we should avoid citing a self-published source which is "promotional in nature" (which would make some sense here, in that the vendor site could be exaggerating how great some of their heat-shrink tubing is).

It does seem common sense that if we could choose between sourcing the statement "fluoropolymer tubes have the widest operating temperature range" to a technical manual, or to Bob's Bargain Basement Heat-Shrink Tubing Site Dot Com, we should pick the former. I don't know whether policy would go further and say that a purely commercial reference was worse than no reference at all. --McGeddon (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark As a user of Wikipedia and as a total novice in need of understanding how to select heatshrink suitable and safe for specific applications, I value the information conveyed by the article(s) and I want the source identified as in any other citation. The certification bodies not only make their standards far too expensive for the individual home and hobby end user, but also write them in technical or scientific terms for the benefit of specificity for those seeking to meet the standard or to achieve certification as a listed product. On the other hand, often industry distills the standards and presents them in a practical way any end user can understand. Therefore, industry participants should not be denied citation because of the important value added by translating conceptual, technical, or other generic detail or information into practical safety or practical application differentiation knowledge oriented to end users. At the end of the day, a citation or link is not going to unduly influence any Wikipedia user going to the length to study any given technology along the way to making a consumer choice. In conducting such research, I often consult Wikipedia, Regulatory, AND industry sources. One final thought: there is societal value in allowing indirect incentive of reputable trustworthy contribution to Wikipedia by letting experts of industry reveal their character and knowledge or lack thereof in public writings that result in regulatory and legal accountability. 172.4.241.150 (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys,

Thanks for the prompt attention to this matter. I apologize for going about this the wrong way, I'm clearly uneducated in the wiki procedures, and I appreciate SpinningSpark's redirecting this chain to the proper forum.

A few points from my perspective: 1) We did not solicit or do the actual linking to our commercial website, so to McGeddon's point "saying that we should avoid citing a self-published source which is "promotional in nature" (which would make some sense here, in that the vendor site could be exaggerating how great some of their heat-shrink tubing is", I think Shaddock took that into consideration by differentiating the material differences, and not saying that our PTFE heat shrink is better than some other company's

2) A user took information from our site which was generated by my extensive experience in the heat shrink industry. It's not just readily available in an encyclopedia where somebody can just go look it up.

3) The top of the heat shrink page clearly states the following: " This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2010) ", so to McGeddon's point "I don't know whether policy would go further and say that a purely commercial reference was worse than no reference at all. --", I say cite the source so the reader can verify themselves whether or not they believe it.

4) To Tetracube's point, I agree, a list of 12 individual subpages within a site is overkill. Just one link is sufficient and then the reader can search through the site to find the specific material properties/references.

5) and finally, I have personally spent years researching/learning and educating my customers and potential customers about heat shrink tubing. One of the ways I do that is through the text on our website. If a user has used our information to improve a wikipedia page, in my humble opinion one of two things should happen - either cite the source, or revert back to the previous version.

Respectfully,

Marc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buyheatshrink (talk • contribs) 16:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with McGeddon that these sources are far from ideal, and am unhappy with using them. I also agree that it would be better to source the article from elsewhere. However, this requires more than a simple change of reference; the text would need to be rewritten in accordance with the new sources and currently no one here appears to be willing to take on this work. The user who made this edit (User:Shaddack, Marc incorrectly referred above to Shaddock who is a different user) clearly used the commercial sources. It is not acceptable to delete the references and leave the text standing. I am not surprised McGeddon cannot find a policy against using commercial sources because there is none - commercial sources are allowed, but need to be used with due caution, they especially cannot be used to establish notability. The guideline is, in fact, to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Marc has a valid complaint that we are not doing this. Short of doing the research and rewriting the edit, in my view the choice comes down to restoring the refs (combining where possible) or if we really think the material is dubious, to remove it altogether. SpinningSpark 09:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not much of a rewrite - the only section of the article which used the retailer site as a source is the flat list of "this type of heat shrink exists, this is its shrink temperature, here are some of its other properties" in the "Materials" section. From a glance around the web, it looks like we can find the exact same information (with slightly different numbers) on any of a number of electrical retail sites, and at least one manufacturer brochure. I'm not seeing any content here that relies on the reseller's "extensive experience in the heat shrink industry".

I'd suggest rewriting the section, using the 3M site as a much more reliable source - I'll get onto it when I've a little more time in the week, if nobody else beats me to it. --McGeddon (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the section out of sheer frustration with the retail catalogs of electronics parts vendors selling "heat shrink tubings" without mentioning materials, or, when materials were mentioned, there was little to no information about how to choose the best for a given application. I wanted an on-hand reference somewhere where I would not have to search it all the time, so I made it. (With hope that somebody else will improve on it.) I have no affiliation with the owners of the pages I sourced, I adhere only to the principle of quoting a source (who IMHO deserves the reward of a link for their obvious hard work I built upon). I also have absolutely no desire to get involved in so often non- (or counter-) productive lawyering over rules (I consider removing links to sources to be WRONG - it's unfair to the source and the readers can't use the link to assess the reliability of the information, but replacement with links to the same information elsewhere is okay with me) and prefer to spend my time actually writing stuff that could be considered useful for fellow technicians. As the author of that section, I'll be happy with anything that will maintain or improve its factual content (and correct my eventual mistakes) and usability for technicians looking for information. --Shaddack (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaddack thank you for starting the heatshrink page - this novice found both its copy and its references useful today, thirteen years on. 172.4.241.150 (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@McGeddon Professional end-users, distributors, retailers, or trade-industry writers often have a broader view of a given product category than would one major manufacturer. Every source, regardless of role, should be evaluated critically and by objective standards regardless of branding. Barriers to achievement of any objective metric for weighing the trustworthiness of a given source should be considered carefully as to its probative value. For example, one independent researcher or testing lab might be publishing a more accurate finding than a government agency or global manufacturer. Likewise, the opposite may be true. Thanks for considering my input. 172.4.241.150 (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A possible source for McGeddon to get some data from, in addition to 3M: http://books.google.com/books?id=5Vr07pdsXGoC&pg=PA526&dq=%22heat+shrink+tubing%22+polyolefin&lr=&num=50&as_brr=3&cd=10#v=onepage&q&f=false And a mention of the use and properties of irradiated films in shrink tube designs: http://books.google.com/books?id=oe5YJmRmxQMC&pg=PA294&dq=%22heat+shrink+tubing%22+polyolefin&lr=&num=50&as_brr=3&cd=17#v=onepage&q&f=false I am sadly currently not in a position to play with it myself. --Shaddack (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4/5/16: since when are commercial links allowed? "Reference" #1 is a commercial site which sells heat shrink tubing.

wrong information and still no citations

Hey Guys,

I know you had decided to change the site to use "less commercial" links as the sources. Two things - 1) This page still has information taken from buyheatshrink .com, without a reference to the site, and 2) The changes that have been made so far, referencing the 3M site as the source have wrong information. One product is not even made by 3M, and the other has a different property than what 3M states on their data sheet.

So, IMHO, you're in the process of making your site less accurate (and thus, less reputable) in order to avoid linking to a commercial link which contains years of experience and research.

Thanks, Marc Foot6453 (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've cut the material that was previously sourced to the commercial site buyheatshrink.com. This will make the article temporarily less informative, but in terms of reputability, I'd say that a slightly less complete article was more reputable than one where every item in a list of available heatshrink types was sourced to "buy this type of heatshrink at buyheatshrink.com".

I'll invite further feedback from other editors on the subject of commercial references, though, as it's not an issue I've dealt with before. I've started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Using_commercial_sites_as_sources. --McGeddon (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5/6/20: Hello all- I was surprised to discover this article asserts that there are only eleven manufacturers of heat shrink tubing in the world, essentially. That any manufactures are chosen for mention, in a product field with many diverse makers, seems unnecessary, so I'll go ahead and remove that bit. Plausible_deniability (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications and Standards (for end user understanding of suitable applications)

Please consider including annotation describing the applications and maybe parameters of each certification marking code or standard.

Please consider linking each certification code or standard to its own end-user oriented page of detailed, technical specifications and approved applications. 172.4.241.150 (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]