Talk:Formica (plastic)

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2017 2020

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Formica (plastic)

The current Wikipedia article on Formica is focused on the history of the company. While interesting, this is of limited value to those like myself who are interested in working with it. (Examples: can it be customised for special shapes, how it can best be cut or shaped, how/if it can be patched, heat- and chemical tolerance...) As to the question of splitting the existing article, I suppose that would depend upon how much additional information is available, for example Formica: working with, uses, maintenance, and so on. 174.20.130.157 (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Don't split I think this suggestion falls under WP:NOTHOWTO Meters (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Don't split How to work with it and maintain it won't get accepted, not in this article and not in a split-out article either. It's valuable information, but it belongs on a how-to website, or in videos showing how it's done, not in an encyclopedia. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

After 9 months and (and 4 months since the last comment) this isn't going anywhere. This wasn't formatted on the talk page as an official split proposaI, and it does not seem to warrant a post at WP:RFCL, so I've simply removed split tag, even though I'm involved. Meters (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I think putting more material and costruction data would be really useful. I do not even think the article mentions it can be a laminate, and nonsentient AI is kind of middle-of-the risky spectrum as an environmentally mild polymer/waste debris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-27971-11 (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

You do not even think the article mentions it can be a laminate? Really? That fact is mentioned in multiple places in the article, and the first line of the article reads "Formica Laminate is a composite material ..." And what does your comment about AI have to do with anything? Meters (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Name origin confusion

It says the name comes from "for mica". Good.

Then it also says this: "The word already existed as the scientific name for wood ants, from which formic acid and the derivative formaldehyde compound used in the resin were first isolated."

That sentence is clearly true – but is it relevant? It shows no source, so it seems like it's random trivia and should just be cut out. If there's good evidence to show that the plastic material WAS intentionally also named for [formaldehyde or formic acid or wood ants], then we need to show that evidence. "It just makes sense that it would be" is not enough reason to keep this sentence.

(Just as an example, in the article about a certain automotive manufacturer, there's a good reason we don't say "The word 'Dodge' also means 'make a quick evasive maneuver'.") TooManyFingers (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

(Of course it's possible that the company literature isn't telling the whole truth, but unfortunately if there's no evidence for anything else we have to let stand whatever they said.) TooManyFingers (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)