Add topic
Active discussions

This process is still in use by smaller drafting companies, and the machines can still be purchased, so I don't think that this article should be in the past tense. (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


from first had experience of seeing a machine work back in the 80s, I can say the description of the process is fair. the UV leaking out where the paper went through the box and the stench of ammonia made it pretty memorable. How do they get them past H&S rules these days?

The Yowser (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


‘Many blueprint shops ran ventilation ducts from the machines to outside. Smaller and mid-size blueprint machines were often outfitted with ammonia neutralizer absorbers which would absorb some of the ammonia for a period of time.’ and ‘Revision control was done in contrasting color on the blue-lines, for example red markup of a blueprint copy by the engineer, then yellow markup on the copy by the draftsman who implemented the changes on the original drawing, then brown markup by the checker, on a check-print (a brown-line). Finally, the architect or engineer, draftsman, checker and supervisor would sign the original drawing, making it a legal document.’

Presumably where the word ‘blueprint’ is used in these examples, either ‘whiteprint’ or ‘blueline’ is meant. It doesn’t appear to makes sense otherwise, unless I’ve misunderstood something.--Simon Butler (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Merging of pagesEdit

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)

Go for it. There's tons of bureaucracy involved in merges, though. See WP:MERGE or WP:MERGING or whatever it's called. You can put a merge from flag on each page, then a mergeto on the destination page. It's the only way to prevent the "blind men and the elephant" problem - comprehensive overviews are important, and if we need to get into minute details then the details can be spun out. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd say "go for it" too. It makes a lot of sense. Just follow the procedure at WP:PROMERGE to get the attribution right (use proper edit summaries and leave {{Merged from}} and {{Merged to}} templates on the talk pages). Best, do the bulk merge (WP:FMERGE) first, then clean up the duplicated text and rearrange the article to flow nicely. No such user (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
+1, templates added. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
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) 05:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)