Talk:Pigment

GA reassessment

I am failing and delisting the article for the following reasons:

• Physical basis section is entirely unsourced.
• New sources for historic pigments entirely unsourced.
• Manufacturing and industrial standards entirely unsourced.
• Scientific and technical issues entirely unsourced.

There's enough unsourced content that I have to delist it. Wizardman 15:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Pigment-producing bacteria

Is this worth uploading? Should this article have a section about it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pigment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110711101825/http://www.tvo.org:80/TVOsites/WebObjects/TvoMicrosite.woa?bi?1175976000000 to http://www.tvo.org/TVOsites/WebObjects/TvoMicrosite.woa?bi?1175976000000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Solubility in oils or water claim should have citation

The introduction states that the distinction between pigments and dyes is that pigments are inorganic, and non-water soluble, while dyes are organic and water soluble.

Given the fact that this statement pertains to the very definition and distinction of pigments and dyes, I think a citation should be provided or required. It is a statement with far reaching implications. Applying to every dye and pigment. I think taking any definition at its word without a citation should be avoided. Within reason, of course.

For topics with two different terms which seem to refer to the same thing, but are very different on a technical level, this is especially important as there can be a lot of confusion and conjecture surrounding the differences.VoidHalo (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not a controversial claim, and you can find a description in any introductory source on this topic. Here's one I found in 1 minute of searching: Gürses, A.; Açıkyıldız, M.; Güneş, K.; Gürses, M.S. (2016). "Dyes and Pigments: Their Structure and Properties". Dyes and Pigments. Springer. pp. 13–29. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33892-7_2. Dyes are colored substances which are soluble or go into solution during the application process and impart color by selective absorption of light. Pigments are colored, colorless, or fluorescent particulate organic or inorganic finely divided solids which are usually insoluble in, and essentially chemically unaffected by, the vehicle or medium in which they are incorporated. –jacobolus (t) 17:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Broadly true - the source (Gurses) states that dyes are soluble, but the solvent does not have to be water. A number of well-known dyes are usually dissolved in organic solvents, such as alcohols.Plantsurfer 18:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I rewrote the first few sentences to more closely match this definition. –jacobolus (t) 18:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If this is the case, then shouldn't what you just cited to me be included as a citation for the claim in the article? That was really the point in me posting this. That it's a statement pertaining to the definition, but with no citation. It shouldn't be up to the reader to look it up.

And even if it's common knowledge in industry, a reader's knowledge shouldn't be assumed.

In any case, I'm glad a solution was found which everyone, myself included, can agree upon. I appreciate your input and will check out the citation you provided. Thank you for your input, and for being a contributor in general. I know it's a terribly thankless task. VoidHalo (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's of course fine to provide citations for any claim in wikipedia, and I tried to put a couple of decently useful survey sources in the footnote. But my point is that is an easily verifiable basic definition, not a controversial statement. –jacobolus (t) 00:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

history source

If anyone is interested in expanding the history section, this seems to be a nice summary:

Abel, A. (2017). "24: The history of dyes and pigments: From natural dyes to high performance pigments". In Best, J. (ed.). Colour Design (2nd ed.). Elsevier. pp. 557–587. doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-101270-3.00024-2.

–jacobolus (t) 06:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Printing

Almost nothing about printer inks on here. Also, the article says that you can't put pigments in water. Then how does one explain water-based pigment inks, such as "iX"? 79.106.203.88 (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)