Talk:Ozalid (trade mark)

Untitled

I made the edits I did mostly because Ozalid was described (as it appears to be in many places on the 'Net) as a "trademarked process." For one, the NAME of a process may be protected by a trademark, but not the process itself. Secondly, if OZALID was a trademark, it ought to also have a generic name (As "XEROX" is a brand of photocopier, so "OZALID" would be a brand of [what generic name?].

Consequently, I researched the USA trademark record, and made the edits I did.

Mahatma (CBK) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatmabenfoo (talk • contribs) 11:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of pages

I believe that the three pages

could easily be combined into one with sections for each.

Redirect can bring the old page names back to the common home.

The only extra work is to clarify that one speaks of the equipment, one of the product and one of the process. However they should all be treated as sections in one page with alternate names where required.

I have cross posted this note to all three pages, if someone thinks this is justifiable there is some way to flag the pages for merging I think but have not tried it before so leave that up to other editors.

Idyllic press (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason for merging for ozalid article deals mainly in the registration of the name not in the process it self which is described in whiteprint

for that reason I've changed the name and the paragraph order..which makes the purpose of the article more clearer,

I have also renamed diazo copier to heliographic copier for it works with both diazotype and cyanotype processes, and I've explained with detail the two processes in the article..

--Mcapdevila (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]