Talk:Pad printing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by fltyingpig, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on November 13, 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Printex

I took the liberty of removing the heading for printing companies that specialize in pad printing. There are many companies across the world that deal with this type of printing, and naming each one would simply be unnecessary. And what's more: there was only one company listed under this heading (Printex), and its information seemed more like an advertisement for the company than content relevant to Wikipedia. I left the Wikilink to the Printex article as part of this article, however. Angel caboodle (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not Jigs, Fixtures

Changed the word jig to fixture. A fixture is a support that holds the work in a fixed position. A jig is a guide that locates on the work and guides a tool. The usage in the article refers to a fixture, not a jig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Chamberlain (talk • contribs) 23:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InkCups advertising

The further reading section of this article is looking more and more like an advertisement for inkcups.com; too many of the links refer off to this corporate website. At quick scan User:209.113.196.98 seems to be adding some article content and ALL of the inkcups.com links. Swoolverton (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would the following link to a YouTube video be appropriate for the external links section?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS4-X_KBd7A&feature=player_embedded

This video explains how a pad printing plate is prepared and shows the pad printing machine in action.

PB2010ret (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tampograph?

The word "tampograph" redirects to this page, but isn't used anywhere on this page, which isn't very helpful when I'm trying to find out what a tampograph is.--184.5.223.183 (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Printermaker advertising

The further reading section of this article is looking more and more like an advertisement for inkcups.com; too many of the links refer off to this corporate website. At quick scan User:209.113.196.98 seems to be adding some article content and ALL of printermaker.com links. User:sarah ye (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.64.168.248 (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ink"? (and possible copy-and-pasting)

So "ink" is the correct word to use here? Just curious, because if you asked the layperson they would probably say it was "paint" - an opaque film that is applied as a liquid and dries to a solid film. Curious where the dividing line between "ink" and "paint" is anyway. Is it mere tradition to call the applied substance in a printing process "ink", regardless of how much it resembles traditional printer's ink? I only ask because I figured there was a chance that the author wrote the article thinking specifically about pad printing that uses actual ink, and the term was kept even though properly the term should be something else. I have no idea, just seems strage to me to call the stuff they print the markings on Hot Wheels cars "ink". "Ink" doesn't chip/scrape off in flakes, in my personal opinion. To me "ink" is something that marks a surface by permeating and staining it a darker color, as opposed to drying in a film on the surface. Which would be paint. But I don't claim to know anything about printing. ``I'd also mention that my eye was drawn to the part where the text says "please refer to the accompanying chart for substrate/compound compatibility". Not seeing any accompanying chart on the page after all, I must say it makes it quite suspicious that someone copied and pasted at least that portion of text from another webpage, not even bothering to read it close enough to remove obvious evidence like that. Which isn't a heinous crime, unless it's copyrighted, but it's really quite unambitious, to put it nicely. It's taking someone else's work and posting it up on Wikipedia without permission, even if it's not copyrighted. If they wanted it on WIkipedia, they'd have perhaps posted it themselves. It's not like it's that difficult to take and re-write an article so it gives the same info, but isn't copied directly from someone's work with no more work than a copy and a past command and a little highlighting. Even if it was used with permission or something, it needs better editing.

70.109.163.78 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]