Talk:Paperweight

message: This section just added should be moved to its own separate article.  It is too long and out of place in an article about collecting.  I'll leave it for now and editors of the article should discuss this.  DonSiano (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: John Paul Stankard section

message: It mentions nothing at all that a "Paperweight" is an object designed to hold down paper. Perhaps it should be moved to a "paperweight collecting" article or something, and a generic article about what paperweights really are should be created.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.101.105 (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The focus of this article is far too restrictive.  The title says "Paperweight," not "Fine Glass Paperweights" - regardless of the disclaimer at the top.  Besides, linking readers to a Wiktionary entry when an article is poorly written is not an established practice on Wikipedia.  This could comprise a section in an article on paperweights, but it is seriously lacking as things stand. Mkubica (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a bad article 

message: Since the title of this article is just paperweight then nhe article's intro should define what a paperweight is and maybe mentions some of the styles and materials used in making them. It could then focus on fine glass paperweights as collectors items. It is my understanding the fine glass paperweights are not actually something completely different then the merely functional paperweights used to hold down paper, just that they also have artistic value too. Originally I believe they where sold to hold down paper like merely functional paperweights but now are mostly sold as a decorative/art item. A such i see no reason to separate the fine glass paperweight from the functional paperweight definition on Wiktionary. There is nothing stopping someone from using a fine glass paperweight as a paperweight even if no practically one is buying them for that purpose these days. --Cab88 (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should define what subject is in intro 

message: Reference 11 has the wrong date. I'm brand new to this, so I don't know how to fix it, but it should read, "Daily Mail - June 4th 2010".Red MarkR (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference correction 

message: The report of a paperweight causing a fire is very questionable.  First of all, paperweights are almost always less than 4 inches in diameter, and the base is either entirely opaque or partially obscured by the interior design.  They are generally very poor concentrators of sunlight, and exceedingly poor sources of heat.  The shape of the dome is not conducive either.  I'd only be convinced by an experimental report that specifies the conditions under which one caused a fire.  Speculation from a fireman's after-report is insufficient.  Putting this paragraph at the end of the article is like an article on the Dairy cow that states in its last paragraph that one was reported to have caused the great Chicago fire.  I am therefore removing it.DonSiano (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire dangers 

message: This is a great example of what's wrong with large portions of Wikipedia. This article is clearly dominated by the perceptions of a tiny but fervent fandom which collects paperweights as objects d'art, when in reality the primary purpose of a paperweight is to hold frigging papers down. This is mentioned not even once in the entire article due to the fringe fandom domination.
Expect major changes. Expect several new sources. Expect an edit war if they're opposed. Court Appointed Shrub (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article utterly sucks and is pure fringe fandom 

message: Having received paperweights twice at 2 companies for x number of years of service (usually a multiple of 5), I don't see any discussion in this article of exactly when that all started, historically.  When companies decided rather than giving you something useful, they gave these paperweights out.  To say nothing about giving out a tool to hold physical papers down when in reality we've moved past an age when we use physical paper in an office anymore.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.32.95 (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ubiquitousness of paperweights as corporate gifts and when that all started