Talk:Blu Tack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Interesting Info

I took out:

Interesting info

• blu-tack is fun to play with, you can mould it into different shapes.

due to....I dunno, complete stupidity? --Stretch 05:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey now, let's be fair. Someone was just trying to help. They didn't quite succeed at doing what 'kpedia is for, but hey, but at least they tried. --Lenoxus 19:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

MSDS link broken

The link to the MSDS is broken and I couldn't easily find it perhaps someone else could 128.250.6.247 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kneaded Erasers

Is this substance at all related to the kneaded eraser? Aside from being tougher than the kneaded eraser, the two act and look very similar.67.150.217.132 05:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

True. Dfrg.msc 08:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Very different. You don't erase with blu tack. --Preceding unsigned comment added by GavinTing (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You clearly haven't tried. It works reasonably well. 130.194.13.105 01:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Misconduct

It looks like someone has been goofing around on this Encyclopaedia. I would strongly suggest a cleanup and verification of contents. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.159.15.76 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

DIfferent "tacks"

Should the fact that there are such ones now called green-tack and red-tack and other coloured tacks be mentioned?--Coin945 (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Use as a drug?

Well, I don't know but it seems to me that alpha-11-benzomasterbakerpropyl isn't a name of a chemical compound... I'm a chemistry student and I have never seen a "master baker" inside a chemical name... Probably somebody playing with the words? If you're wondering where I got this, try looking up the Drug section at the bottom of the page.

Joonhon (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a vandal. I've reverted that edit twice now. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Where can I get some?

Worldwide availability, or only in Europe and North America? Andycjp St Andrews Day 2006

I've never seen it in North America. Maybe ask a contact in the UK to post you some? Marnanel 14:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The basic product is available in most North American office supply stores, at least it would seem to me, but maybe not the specific brand. --Lenoxus 19:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I live in Australia, and it is sold commonly over here. So it is not "only Europe and North America" Retro Agnostic (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Special mention of German Blu-tack properties

'"White Tack", made by the German company UHU, is similar but, as the name suggests, is white, so coloured so that it doesn't stain walls or show through easily on posters as Blu-Tack does.'

In South Africa, Prestik is white as well (by default anyways), so why does the German "White Tack" get special mention of being white, especially since the name is so self-evident. Removing this special reference. Geqo (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is "Blu-Tack"...

...a trademark? I had a quick look at the Blu-Tack website and didn't notice any of those "®" or "TM" characters, but I think that whether or not it is a trademark should be clarified and then mentioned in the article. 212.84.121.75 (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Blu-tack is a trademark of Bostik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmoinat (talk • contribs) 10:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Name

Is it Blu-tac or Blu-tack? The header and lede are differently spelled. Marnanel 15:40, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Everything official I could find (including the packet in front of me) says Blu-Tack, and it doesn't seem to vary by country. I've moved the page and updated all links.--Dtcdthingy 21:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The official website says it's "Blu Tack", so I've moved the page. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just added a photograph which clearly shows the correct spelling. -- Longhair\^talk 12:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the very link given above gives it as "Blu-Tack". Yes, the URL is "blutack", but we read "Blu-Tack" within the page. Meanwhile, the British page blu-tack.co.uk has a hyphen in its URL and repeatedly says "Blu-Tack". Tama1988 (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Though I have to concede that the Australian page uses (both!) "BluTack" and "Blu Tack" instead. Tama1988 (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I live in the most North Easterly part of Atlantic Canada and I've never heard of "Zorkai". Quote from the main page - Blu Tack is known as "Zorkai" in north eastern areas of Canada". It might be a Quebec product but I highly doubt it and regardless it ain't popularly known as that. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.206.32 (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My girlfriend is also from a north easterly part of Atlantic Canada (aka Newfoundland), and she's never heard it called "Zorkai" either. Unfortunately a sample size of two isn't statistically valid. That said, a quick Google search shows no hits for "Zorkai" on a Canadian TLD, which casts serious doubt on that claim IMO. On that basis I'm strongly tempted to remove it. Does anyone else agree? Quickos (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I can happily confirm that "Zorkai" was a clever spoof edit by some friends of mine several years ago, that served to highlight the abject stupidity of British Newspapers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.19 (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed Zorkai and moved the citation, which is an article about pink blu-tack, up to where that point is made earlier in the article. That page does say that Zorkai is the name used in NE Canada, but it seems they got that info from here, not the other way around. RakRooster (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I came to this article to clarify whether to say blu-tacing or blu-tacking, and was surprised that the k was present in the current packaging. Whilst I'm happy to be proven wrong, I'm convinced that it was without the k in mid-80's Britain! Gandru (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Blu Tack.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Blu Tack.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 8 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Similar Products/Generic Article

Sorry about the flurry of edits. I was trying to clean up the "Similar products" section to distinguish between similar brands to and common names for the product. Perhaps there should be a generic article on adhesive putties?Emajekral (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously guys?

Why on the 'Uses' section is there no mention of the fact that its primary use is sticking things to walls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.181.195 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 October 2012‎

Because you haven't added it yet. This is a wiki. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Information not present in source

According to the Uses section: Blu-Tack can be used as a damping agent for sound and vibration applications, due to its low amplitude response properties.

However, the source "http://www.stereophile.com/content/sound-surprise-loudspeakerstand-interface", does not mention blu-tack, nor its low amplitude response properties. --134.225.160.102 (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If you search the forum on http://www.stereophile.com for 'Blu Tack' , 'Blu Tac' or 'Blu Tak'. Just search each page. There are many references to it's use as a damping agent.

Here are some links. If you do a page search you will find some reference. I haven't asked permission so I'm not going to copy/paste the actual text:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/tweaks-good-bad-or-different

http://www.stereophile.com/content/lets-do-some-referencing
http://www.stereophile.com/content/revisiting-hi-fi-break-1
http://www.stereophile.com/content/new-tweaky-tweaks-1

Another thing I've noticed is that the link for the phrase "damping agent" links to an article about damping in musical instruments but does not link to the soundproofing article which is more relative. I have not yet found an article on wikipedia which refers to this substance from a vibration damping point of view so I think this subsection should be expanded and linked from the soundproofing page. OR vice versa. The absorption section of the soundproofing page does not supply names of specific products.

134.225.160.102, The Stereophile article cited for the article's information about Blu-Tack damping / amplitude-response actually does mention Blu-Tack. It is discussed extensively, and even included among the comparative test scenarios, beginning on page 3 of the article. On page 6 the author summarizes the experimental results as follows:

As a rule of thumb, if you want to suppress cabinet resonances the least, you should support your speaker on upward-pointing spikes or cones. If you want to suppress resonances the most, you should use thin pads of Blu-Tack about the size of a nickel.

-- FeRD_NYC (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal?

There needs to be information about how to remove the stuff, by a solvent or otherwise. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Why is it called Blu Tack?

Seems an obvious question, but the article asserts that Blu Tack was originally white in colour. If this is true, why is it called Blu Tack? Was it renamed Blu Tack after the blue dye was added to the formulation? If so, what was it called originally? 109.158.44.178 (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

"Chiefly British?"

My impression as an American who lived and worked in the UK for 12 years is that adhesive putty is much more popular in Britain than elsewhere. I think nearly anyone who works in a British office is familiar with Blu-Tack, but few in America would be familiar with adhesive putty at all. (I don't know about other countries.) In the UK, it seems to have nearly the same level of recognition as Post-It notes; indeed it seems to be almost a cultural phenomenon. If this is true, should something be said about this in the article? If not, could someone set me straight? G Sisson (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As a British boy in the 80's, Blu-Tac (I'm sticking with that for discussion!) was an essential item - how else would posters for Spectrum games be stuck to the wall? Oh dear... I have the impression (from films, I suppose) that Americans favour poster hangers? Gandru (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would subscribe to the view blu-tack has a special place in our hearts. What we need is an appropriate citable source. The reference in this article to the popularity and extensiveness of the artistic/unconventional uses section on the British Blu-tack website suggests the appetite (real or not) for such content and thus a status as cultural phenomenon or icon - not that i am authorative user of these terms. So, if you have any good citations to strengthen what is already suggested here, you go ahead and think of how to include or restructure to include this assertion. Otherwise, I think this will have to do for now, wont it? Kathybramley (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC), British thirty-something.

I think Blu Tack has much greater recognition in the UK than Post-It notes. Blu Tack has always been a staple of the stationery cupboard, considered the immediate first choice for temporarily posting things on walls for display, even going back to my early primary school days. Post-It notes have only relatively recently become more prominent. I'd never heard of them until I started working in an office; we certainly never had them in school in my era, whereas Blu Tack was commonplace. 109.158.44.178 (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blu Tack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150215001242/http://www.blutack.com/how-to-use.html to http://www.blutack.com/how-to-use.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150215001242/http://www.blutack.com/how-to-use.html to http://www.blutack.com/how-to-use.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150215001242/http://www.blutack.com/how-to-use.html to http://www.blutack.com/how-to-use.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)