Talk:Joint compound

Repetition

The article is beginning to get repetitious, with the same information repeated in various paragraphs. Can someone who is knowledgeable about this subject proofread it so that it reads more clearly? Badagnani 03:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buckets

Use of empty buckets??? Seems kind of unnecessary to me... Demonkey36 00:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the buckets as a musical instrument has been prominent over the past 20 or so years. Probably it shouldn't be in the lead paragraph, however. Badagnani 00:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they make a good drum, but don't most buckets? Or most rigid hollow items for that matter? A bit out of place I think. Mikeeg555 19:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Compound for Plumbing?

Joint compound is also "A material applied to threaded connections to help prevent leaks in plumbing." Perhaps there should be a disambiguation section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.159.89 (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Spackling paste?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, as there is no support and objections on several grounds. Klbrain (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago @François Robere: proposed merging Joint compound and Spackling paste (which, arguably from the Talk page, should be renamed to Spackle). It seems to me that there is quite a lot of confusion between these two products (to the point where the image used to illustrate spackle looks to me to be incorrect and it is likely showing joint compound and not spackle).

However, I'm not sure that merging the two articles will help to address that confusion. It does mean the joint article will necessarily have to have a section distinguishing the two, which is not well-done right now, but having them in a single article may well serve to create more confusion, not less. For instance, if the merged article is titled "Joint compound," it will rightly be open to the criticism that "spackle is not joint compound," and vice-versa if the merged article is titled "Spackle."

(The chief differences are that spackle contains vinyl, air dries quickly, is intended for very small holes, and is more expensive per unit volume. Joint compound is available in many more varieties, is more often used by professionals, is used in larger volumes, and comes in two primary chemistries: a water-based variant (which may also contain vinyl?) that takes a day or more to dry, slower than spackle; and a chemically hardening variety that dries in minutes-to-hours, on par with or faster than spackle.)

What's the case for the merger? jhawkinson (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT the use case is different, but the materials are at least partly interchangeable. The best solution in my view is either to start Filling (construction material) or extend Putty - which is already focused on construction (though whether it should be is arguable), - in either case putting the different use cases under subsections. François Robere (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like your strongest case for the merger is "the materials are at least partly interchangeable." That does not, to me, sound like a very good reason at all (if it is even true, which is, at least partly, disputed).

You propose yet another aggregation of both of the article into Filling (construction material); that seems even worse than a merger of either of these two. It will make the information harder to find, and it will encourage the conflation of these two different products with still more other unspecified products. Lacking justification beyond "partly interchangeable," I would not support it. As for Putty, neither of these materials are a putty! This seems to be subjective, and I think modern usage may vary, but to my mind, a putty must have a flexibility and plastic nature that is not merely ephemeral, usually by means of some kind of rubberizing or oil agent. Joint compound, generally, is not sufficiently viscous or pliable to qualify as a putty, and dries far too quickly. Spackle is closer, but I would say that it fails on both counts as well. Merriam-Webster defines a putty as "doughlike" and typically made with oil. But on the contrary, the AHD offers a cement-like definition ("A fine lime cement used as a finishing coat on plaster.") and the OED offers a similar definition starting from the year 1472; those definitions don't comfort with my understanding of modern usage, but as I said, there is quite a bit of subjectivity here. jhawkinson (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase: they're similar materials used for slightly different purposes, and are in some cases interchangeable. In fact, in my locale the term "joint compound" doesn't even exist ("spackle" does) - you simply choose the preferred form (powder or paste) and base material (gypsum, acrylic, vinyl etc.), and use it as you will. A quick search for sources suggests the main differences, where there are any, are consistency and drying time - which in many materials are simply a factor of hydration.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Seeing as both "dry" and "wet" doughs are still dough (and all "cements" are cement, and all "concretes" are concrete, regardless of the more minute details of composition and use), I don't see why we shouldn't treat putty / filler / spackling paste / joint compound the same. François Robere (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spackling Paste is an important article for linguistic purposes ("Spackle" and "Poyfila"), and should not be merged. However it needs to be expanded to complete its topic and differentiate with "Joint Compound"; it presently does not include modern polymer-added products nor explain the different hardness/hardening properties.71.230.16.111 (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photo quality

the pictures used in this article are not indicative of professional mudders. theses pictures look like a carpenter did the mudding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.230.134 (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

firestop compound

Teslaedit17: I'm a little skeptical as to the recent reference you added to USG's Firecode Brand Compound. As far as I can tell from reading the data sheet and website, it's not a joint compound, it's a firestop for penetrations. Also, it discusses a minimum application of 1/2" or 1" on top of a fire safing (which is not the same as the compound?) which doesn't sound like joint compound to me. (On the other hand, the website, but not the PDFs it links to, does say "A fire-rated joint compound that dries to a red color that is easily identified by fire marshals." Not sure what to make of that inconsistency.) Can you support the claim that this is really joint compound within the meaning of this article? Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Touche. Clarified. Teslaedit17 (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am…still skeptical. It feels like this is out of scope in this article, in the same way that pipe dope, when called "pipe joint compound" (because it goes on the joints of pipes) doesn't belong here (see orphaned Talk topic above), even though it is arguably a "joint compound." jhawkinson (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]