Talk:Pen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Collecting pens

Does anyone know of the terminology used to describe a person who enjoys collecting pens?

Yeah....boring!

You could always try stylophile ( check out http://www.stylophilesonline.com/contents.htm).


[edit] A Pen Timeline - verbatim copy

Have just discovered that this section was originally lifted word for word from [1]. While it is certainly interesting to trace the history of the pen, this should now be done more objectively, looking at authentic references and resources. I had already started with footnotes, etc., but will now attempt to do a rewrite. -Ipigott 13:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Excellent. This page deserves a lot better ... I'll chip in where I can. Mike Helms 13:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terms & Expersions

Terms & Expersions,; should it be split up to History & Terms & Exprsions?

24.65.55.93 09:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exploding Pens

There should be something on how and why the ink of a pen explodes sometimes. Is this because of the pressure? --70.111.218.254 22:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Exploding ink??? Are you 4 years old? Ink cant explode. It doesn't contain explosive contents in its makeup. Try holding the pen softer. -TTT13

[edit] List of retailers ...

I have removed the "list of retailers" section ... this is not encyclopedic; it's advertising for companies that sell pens. We can add it in if people disagree with me ... but I don't see this as being appropriate for Wikipedia. Mike Helms 20:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion due Vandalism

I've reverted to an old version due to outright vandalism 201.17.49.141 22:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Cleanup

I did a semi-major cleanup on this page, but I have left the "cleanup" tag as it still doesn't read very smoothly ... Mike Helms 11:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Although I agree the page was in need of it and I appreciate your efforts, linking in section headers is somewhat frowned upon, as is linking dates in general when not highly pertinent, I'm in favor of the subsection headers you've created, but linking them might not be a great idea. Vicarious 11:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmmm ... didn't know that. What would you suggest? Mike Helms 13:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Take a look now ... this should follow conventions better. Mike Helms 13:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks, looks much better now. Vicarious 23:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that this article would benefit from some authentic references, particularly in relation to the history. Pens are one of the cornerstones of our literary heritage and deserve better treatment than we have at present. There is some pretty good stuff on writing implements, quills, etc., but pens have a place in their own right. I'll try to work on this over the next few days - unless anyone disagrees with the need.- Ipigott 18:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] pen types

Someone added this to the article:

  • Retractable pen

and it was soon removed. I don't know whether it should be there or not, so I'd like to request any editor watching this page to please have a look. ThanksxC | ☎ 20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eraseable Pen Link

It links back to the page...is it really necessary? Should a new page be added? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.154.40 (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

If you have a real reason and enough information too, then yes. Otherwise, no.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Can somebosy insert the ballpen's inwentor on this page too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.13.231 (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Already done, check the Ballpoint Pen page.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roller felt tip pens

There was an entry for these under "other pens" Is there such a thing? A good internet search doesn't reveal anything and I don't understand how it would work anyway. I've removed the reference for now.

Travuun (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ENGVAR

Today someone used the British spelling "colour" in an edit and it was changed [2] to "color" on the grounds of WP:ENGVAR, which says to stick with the variant of English first used in a given article, unless it has strong ties to British or North American (or other) English spelling. The earliest use of either form of the word I can find is [3], from 2005, which favors the "color" spelling. I did not notice British spellings in earlier versions. WP:ENGVAR is intended to keep from jarring variations in spelling (check/cheque, color/couour) in one article, but does not prevent some usage of alternate terms when appropriate, as in using the term "lift" in the Elevator article. Edison (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)