Talk:Tracing paper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Technology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Names of office supply stores[edit]

I am deleting the last sentence - individual office supply stores don't need to be named, especially as it's more likely to be found at an art supplies store. If anybody wants to put this information back in please go ahead, but re-work it so it doesn't sound like an advert for said stores.218.43.238.173 05:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please check the interwiki here. The fr:Papier calque and pt:Papel Vegetal may not exist? Newone 00:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is www.saralpaper.com specializing in tracing paper? Newone 02:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This type of paper is not lighter than commons paper. This is heavier. 118.71.183.47 (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a major error on the page, on the bottom, their is a box with sewing articles, when it should be about different kinds of paper and inks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminy23 (talkcontribs) 05:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Density[edit]

"Translucent papers are dense and contain up to 10% moisture at 50% humidity. This type of paper is roughly 25% lighter than regular paper." I think this is the quote giving rise to the point made by 118.71.183.47 on 12 March 2009 in another section. Comparing two stacks of equal volume, if translucent paper is more dense, it will also be heavier then regular paper. Wistful (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Refractive Index[edit]

"This material has a refractive index close to 1, which makes the material translucent to normal light".

There's a bracketed instance of "dubious-discuss" after this, and in all honesty it should be. That sentence is nothing but "sciency" words that have nothing to do with a refractive index close to 1. For example, diamonds have a refractive index of over two and are completely capable of being translucent. All the refractive index does is show how quickly light will move when travelling through something, not whether light travels through it at all. This is why words like "opaque" exist to describe objects light doesn't penetrate, and "translucent" to describe things it does. I'm doubtless that tracing paper has a given number describing its index of refraction, but I'm also well in doubt that an index of refraction has anything to do with why something is translucent.

Falling short of my rant, the sentence adds nothing to the paragraph in which it exists; it looks precisely like nonsensical filler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carbonatedserpentine (talkcontribs) 23:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)