Talk:High production volume chemicals

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occupational Safety and Health Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

changing HPV Chemicals to Hpv chemicals

Hi Gigemag76, today 1 May 2014 you moved the page High Production Volume Chemicals to High production volume chemicals.

Any particular reason? just because YOU feel like it? No Edit summary ?

I mean, I am with you , when it comes to unnecessary capitalizations, but this here was deliberate. I made this page using numerous sources and they all spell HPV capitalized. not my invention. Unless you have a convincing reason I intend to revert your move. Please discuss.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

changing Screening Information Dataset to screening information dataset.

Gigemag76, why changing Screening Information Dataset to screening information dataset? see above. same concern. your change does not reflect the literature. I am with you, but I cant support this change. Are you on a (stubborn) mission or what? Please discuss. - and while I am at it : May I ask why why no "approximately" ? (all replaced by "about")- you dislike consonants?--Wuerzele (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merging with the stub HPV programme

merging seems ok, Edgar181. not much to merge on the other, crappy end.... If you look at the history, HPV was previously "merged" into [HPV programme] in 2007. I took HPV out of teh HPV programme, because the chemicals is what its all about and I didnt want to write about the unglorious programme. so merge is ok if this title stays. teh programme is an appendix. and the term HPV is already an anachronism. But first let's wait and clarify with Giga76, who insists on decapitalized nomenclature. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we don't need two separate articles. I prefer the title without Programme, because it is more general (among other reasons). --Leyo 00:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo, exactly , no programme. Giga76 didnt reply so I think reverting is ok--Wuerzele (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar181 please help to undo this step by Giga176. where he moved the page to a page with non capitalized letters in the title when I hit undo I get the message 'this edit appears to have been undone', but it is not.

then I can finally try the merge. thank you!--Wuerzele (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I might be missing something but this topic seems very similar to commodity chemicals. This article appears to have many references but, critically, no list of compounds. Commodity chemicals is lightly referenced, but has a list that appears to be somewhat ad-hoc. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree A list of ~5000 compounds wouldn't fit into this article. --Leyo 22:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A list of 5000 compounds does not currently "fit into this [current] article." So that argument does not seem relevant.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, on the grounds that both articles are short and heavy overlap. Commodity chemicals focusses more on trade, whereas High production volume chemicals focusses more on safety implications, ~~but my view is that these are better discussed together.~~ Klbrain (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at this, I now oppose on the grounds that the safety and regulatory aspects of High production volume chemicals warrant a separate consideration. The page is well-developed to look at safety aspects internationally. Klbrain (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]