Talk:Metal clay

Merge
Articles refer to "Precious Metal Clay'; the only forms common are gold and silver; recommend merge.Bridesmill 16:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirected based on no negative comment (actiually, no comment at all) Bridesmill 20:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No merge, having the article at one particular brand name is POV, it needs to stay at the generic. pschemp | talk 03:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that makes no sense. the material only comes in Precious Metals, there is no 'copper clay' for instance. And one is had-pressed to find it referred to in North america as anything except Precious Metal Clay. Plus when the question was posed 2 weeks ago, nobody seemed to have any complaints.Bridesmill 01:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah no, Rings and Things in Seattle carries ACS and has for years. It isn't even close to not referred to, it just depends what brand you are used to using. Just because you didn't know about it doesn't mean it isn't true. A simple Google serach would have told you where to get ACS. Not to mention this is the English wiki, but should not be centered on North America. As for the time, some of us are busy and it takes a while to keep an eye on all 2,500 articles I watch, so cut us some slack. Wikipedia is not an advertising service, and our policies state that. Thus we should not favor one brand over the other, as that promotes a certain point of view and works as advertising. If you aren't familiar with the way we do things here, I suggest you read out editing polices. pschemp | talk 05:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see from the other talk page you don't understand that PMC is a trademarked brand name, as is ACS. Read the package please, that is why the article can reside at neither of these names. pschemp | talk 06:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not. Your capitalization says it all. Also from the article: There are two popular brands of this material, Art Clay Silver (ACS) and Precious Metal Clay (PMC). As for two weeks ago - don't think I was even aware of the article then. Vsmith 02:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added a source for Introduction to Precious Metal Clay which, other than confirm the products source as the Mitsubishi Corporation, also shows how to use the clay, but I cannot seem to find a similar reference for ACS. So the intention in not to promote one product over another.  Could you please be so kind to advise if this is a problem since both clays are very similar in how they are treated from a artisans point of view? Ms730111 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have found what appears to be a similar book for ACS called "Art Clay Silver Basic", but I do not own the book and can therefore not verify that it contains the same information. I can also not find an ISBN number for it. Can someone assist in order to make the article as complete as possible.  Ms730111 (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Update to subject - Edit request
Request edit I have a conflict of interest (Metal Adventures Inc. is a small company with three part-time employees and I’m the CEO), so am suggesting the following edit and references:

Please replace “Lump metal clay is also available in bronze and copper.” with the following:

Lump metal clay in bronze was introduced in 2008 by Metal Adventures Inc. and in 2009 by Prometheus. Lump metal clays in copper were introduced in 2009 by Metal Adventures Inc., and Aida. Due to the lower cost, the bronze and copper metal clays are currently used by more artists[3] than the gold and silver metal clays.

Base metal clays, such as bronze, copper, and steel metal clays are best fired in the absence of oxygen to eliminate the oxidation of copper by atmospheric oxygen. A simple means to accomplish this (place the pieces in activated carbon inside a container) was developed by Bill Struve[4].

3.	Metal Clay Artist Magazine volume 1 Issue 3, page 7.

4.	Art Jewelry, July, 2008, page 30.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by STRUVE (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 April 2010


 * Sure, why not? ✅ Avic enna sis @ 04:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement and review tags
An otherwise inactive IP recently added both these tags. Although ignorant about the topic, I don't see the justification for either. Materialscientist came along after the tags and toned down some of the overly enthusiastic rhetoric in the article, and in his edit summary he said the article was "still overly promotional", but although I think MS's edits were an improvement, that relates to style, not to real promotion or advertsing. If it weren't for that one comment in the edit summary, I would simply remove the tags as unjustified, but I am instead conservatively beginning this discussion to see what others think and why.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is better now, and the main issue is notability - the article is poorly referenced, and redlinked statements like Mr. this and that invented this might be treated as an advert - many of the described clays don't seem very common on Google. Materialscientist (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Another editor reorganized the article and removed the tags. If you're referring to things like M. Morikawa, I believe M. is the first initial of his first name (per looking at Google).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)