Talk:Lenticular lens

message: Isn't it possible to use holograms as lenticular lenses? How?  Trekphiler 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holograms 

message: Hi Guys,
The external links on this page are nothing short of advertisements, with the pages linked to offering lenticular printing services. Please can we have a discussion regarding this before blindly reinstating the pages. I h ave posted a discussion to a couple of anon pages. The pages in question do not comply with WP:LINK as far as i see.
Thanks User A1 01:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I referred this issue to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#lenticular lens, and have followed advice there. Please comment before adding links to this page, such that only links of good quality are included in the article. Thanks User A1 10:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This discussion was going on months ago. The fact that some of the external links come from commercial companies do not mean that they are advertisement. he HumanEyes link is at list informatory as the DPL link. I am about to resore it and please leave it. Alternatively, take out the DPL link as well as it is as advertising os the other. In my opinion, these are informative links, they contribute to the content of the article and should stay.
Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.74.10 (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have examined the discussion from your contribs Special:Contributions/212.179.74.10, and it seems that several editors disagreed with you, and this lead to something of a revert war (for example ). I agree with these authors in the discussion, and believe that they should be removed. Please can you, as one of the other editors stated, incorporate any useful information into the article. The external links are commercial in nature, all of them (except the lecture notes i put in). I really am sorry, but they do not add to the article and are being used as a promotional vehicle. I think I will need to create a request for comments here to resolve this issue. Kind regards User A1 20:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I have messed up the RfC submission and will fix this in about 12hrs. As per the lenstar link, I have removed it a couple of times, if it appears up before this discussion is complete, feel free to move it into the hidden section in the mean time. Thank you for commenting and I will have a chance to more fully address these issues shortly (P.S. don't forget to sign your name with four tilde symbols ~~~~ when you are finished commenting, the editor will substitute the date and time of your comment. Regards User A1 23:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The section on Manufacturing was merged into the article from :Manufacturing technic of a lenticular product following an AfD but although abbreviated from the source is long enough to negatively impact readability of the article. The attention of an expert who can appropriately abbreviate this material would be appreciated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shorten Manufacturing/expert attention

message: by Bernard SOULIER (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Water wetting (1° simplification)

message: by Bernard SOULIER (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UV Ink (2° simplification and internals links)

message: Bernard SOULIER (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Water wetting (internals links)

message: Bernard SOULIER (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Supplement important manufacturing defects of the material lenticular

message: I have removed the following uncited claim from the article. If anyone can provide a citation to support it, or better still can put Fraler's work into historical context, please feel free to work it back into the article. What is really needed is an expanded and improved history section.
The term was invented and coined by the physicist Dr. Joseph Robert Fraler from Dallas, TX.
--Srleffler (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material removed 

message: Hello,
With regards to the linked SEM image and its removal - If you take an SEM image, you generally centre the subject. Futhermore you use scalebars that are appropriate to the image, and clearly displayed. The measurements there are very low resolution and frame the information exceptionally poorly.  Yes SEM images can be cool, no I don't think these ones are. Also 10kV is a very low accellerating voltage. if those distances as marked are 300um, then this probably would be clearer (and better looking) as an optical image.  User A1 (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEM image 

message: I think the combination of lenticular corrective lenses and lenticular printing in one article is not helpful. I propose to split this article into two: Lenticular printing, which will contain the bulk of this article's contents, and a second article on lenticular lenses other than those used for lenticular printing (at present the only material we have on that is the section on lenticular ophthalmic lenses). At some point material from Optical lenticular can be merged into the new lenticular printing article, or perhaps it can be kept as a separate article on the physics behind lenticular images. Either way, that article needs a lot of work first.--Srleffler (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a good idea to perform the merge, but some of the printing information can be culled. I am wary of the possibility of copyvio original reserach on the other page, as until now I had never seen that article. As for splitting the printing and physics/optical phenomena, I think that this article should be first merged, then wait a while until the merge is somewhat stable, then re-examine the need to split. User A1 (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather split first, then merge. The need for a separate article on lenticular printing seems clear to me. It's not so clear how or if the material at lenticular optics (formerly Optical lenticular) should be merged in. Besides needing a lot of cleanup work, that article has serious tone and WP:NOT problems. (Wikipedia is not a textbook.)--Srleffler (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split (and merge) 

message: What about to compare with the geometries found in the eyes of insect eyes, developed by nature? --Helium4 (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geometry of insect eye 

message: Current source is . There is no "Lenticular lens" as separate term. Halfcookie (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You've raised a good point. Maybe we just need to find a better title for this article, or maybe we need to do something more drastic. There is a lot of topical overlap between this article and lenticular printing. Much of the content here could be merged into that article. I'm not what to do then with the material on lenticular screens, and on corrective lenses.--Srleffler (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong definition needed for "Lenticular lens"