Talk:Fountain pen

message: The sentence "The section assembly fit into the pen's end like a cork stopper" is meaningless.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.18.195 (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been fixed, finally! Stylograph (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor English

message: This is going to seem minor, and forgive the edit if it is misplaced, but upon coming to this page I saw nothing on how to hold or use a fountain pen. Most notably, I didn't know which side of the nub was "up." as I came here specifically to learn this, having just bought a disposable fountain pen, I found it troubling that neither the article or its linked pages pointed me in the right direction. Any chance of adding a basic use page? 71.120.73.150 06:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper use

message: The pen is said to be a status symbol, but if you ask people using fountain pens why they do, they will probably answer it is for aesthetic and comfort reasons. Arguably no other kind of pen can reach the same level of fluid and effortless writing and produce such lively line. This could perhaps be mentioned.
: This seems to be a flow problem in the text. Some parts come off denying a thing and a little afterwards there's an "also"-chapter. It could use a lot of rephrasing and arranging.
Yes, and it has reached a size where a division between the introduction, the historical part and the other parts might be useful. AlainV. 2003-12-06
:I'm a moderator for The Fountain Pen Network (www.fountainpennetwork.com), and know the central opinions of fountain pen users. I'll have a read through this article again, and fix some of this division up. I'll make sure it's well explained on the edit pages. Pactio kiss 13:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some copyediting perhaps required 

message: Ramir 09:23, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  gravitation, surface tension 

message: Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 19:33, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
:I've added some references from various news articles. Pactio kiss 13:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for references 

message: I would like to see some mention to the difficulties on the use of fountain pens by left-handed people.  It seems that there are special pens made for lhp, but I have yet to find a true reference. Luis Dantas 06:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left-handed people 

message: It seems to me that there's a whole lot of information here rather densely packed - perhaps so much that a newcomer to fountain pens would be confused and discouraged.  I understand the reasons behind this, since apparently overzealous FP fans have come up in droves to support their favourite hobby on the Wiki.  But maybe we could lean back on the more esoteric knowledge here, and concentrate on the straight facts.  A little copy editing wouldn't hurt either.  Just a thought.
--God_ofcoffee 06:57, 14 Feb 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read this whole page when I was a newcomer to fountain pens. Contrary to your concern, I have found this big mass of information very interesting and informative :-) Pactio kiss 13:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overcrowding 

message: "In addition, they cannot be used with the various oil- and particle-based inks (such as India ink)..." I have a fountain pen and i use Indian Ink for it with no problem
:I guess you're lucky so far.  India ink contains particles in suspension which can block the feed of the pen, especially if it's allowed to dry out.
:India ink is a big no-no for fountain pens. I don't know how you've managed to use them in fountain pens so far, but it's guaranteed to do damage. Pactio kiss 13:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Ink 

message: Whats with all the spam & commericial links? shouldn't we take care of that? Ddahlberg 17:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: I seriously doubt porsche manufactures fountain pens. They probably just license their name to some other maker; it's possible they do some of the design. The makers section should probably be retitled "brands", similar to the ink section. -- Akb4 06:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The licensee is Faber-Castell as far as writing implements are concerned.--Cancun771 13:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  brands, porsche 

message: fountain pen collecting seems to be a large field, which is given little coverage in this article. perhaps a seperate article about it could be created? (this leads me to wonder if there should be (or is?) a template or style for articles on collecting various things...) -- Akb4 06:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  collecting 

message: Can anybody verify this bit of information about the "Sultan" of Egypt demanding a pen in the 10th century? With an independent source? 
It was put in anonymously on the 13th of March last year. According to the wiki on the title of Sultan, as well as the Mamluk and Ayyubid_dynasty, the islamic rulers of Egypt only began to style themselves as Sultans from the 12th century onwards. In the 10th century, ist should much rather have been an Emir.
If this is not corrected and/or properly referenced in a week, I will delete it.--Cancun771 13:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Sultan of Egypt

message: Purvis invented the ink-feeding tube and received a patent in 1890.  The very next sentence reads:  "The first fountain pens making use of all these key ingredients appeared in the 1850s."  How can something that received a patent in 1890 be used in 1850?  S. Randall 11:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline Complications 

message: The article states that "cartridge-filler fountain pens are still in common use in France, Germany and the United Kingdom". A quick search in W H Smith's website found quite a few cheap cartridge pens, so that part is certainly true as applied to the UK at least, but is it the case, as the phrase quoted above seems to imply, that inexpensive cartridge pens are considerably less common outside Europe (and China)? 86.132.138.205 01:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inexpensive fountain pens outside Europe? 

message: My grandma told me that it's best for the pen to use blue ink.  Because black inks are usually made of carbon and they jam the pen when dried.  Any truth to that? Lightblade 18:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ink choice 

message: Exactly when was a reservoir pen first used? First the articel states the 10th century and then mentions the 1st century. --Klaus Bertow 22:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistency

message: A Mediaeval Islamic Prototype of the Fountain Pen? by CE Bosworth - Journal of Semitic Studies, 26(2):229-234 is used in a number of articles for the claim of the 1st fountain pen. This is a short (6 page) article, mostly made up of translation of a passage from al-Quadi al-Nu'man, Kitab al-Majalis wa 'l-musayarat; the author of the original Arabic text is described as 'confidant and companion of the heir-apaprent al-Mu'izz.'(p229)
The passage describes a non-leaking pen with a reservoir, first described and requested by al-Mu'izz, then produced, out of gold, by a craftsman in 'not more than a few days'. 'gravity and capillary action' are not in the cited article and are original research. There is no mention of how the pen functions, how it is filled, or what sort of ink it uses. A quote suggests that the pen only works for certain people, and has a will of its own -  "it only bestows benefit on a person really desiring it, and it does not let its ink flow except for a person who has a  right to summon it forth because the pen approves of him" (p233) This suggests that the account cannot be entirely factual. The question mark in the article title suggests that Bosworth may have some doubt about its veracity. 
I am not sure how best to situate this in the article, other than to say that it may have been an early fountain pen, but point out that this single historical source seems to be the sole source of this claim, no fountain pen from this period has been found, and the mechanism remains unknown.
Dialectric (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  al-Mu'izz pen 

message: I propose that Nibmeister be merged into Fountain_pen. I think that the content in the Nibmeister article can easily be explained in the context of nibs on the Fountain Pen page, and the Nibmeister article is of a reasonable size in which the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Tfwall (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The size of the Nibmeister article is such that very little discussion is warranted for such a merge.  Go for it.  Frotz (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I note that this article has remained in poor shape since 2008.  The list of manufacturers has been expanded in a hit-or-miss manner, but substantive content and references have remained elusive.  Seeing that no progress has been made in 3 yrs, can we just delete this stub article and move on?  Tfwall (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried now and then to get this article into some sort of sensible shape.  Originally I felt that Noodler's ink was unique enough to warrant special mention, but then other people morphed the article into a huge list.  I'd like to merge the leading paragraph into the Fountain pen article and junk most of the rest.  What is deleted would do much better in a wiki for fountain pens.  I'll get on the Fountain Pen Network and let them know what's going on.  I eagerly await your suggestions.  Frotz (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with moving the general introductory paragraphs into Fountain pen.  I don't think there is much else salvageable. Tfwall (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied what I think is appropriate.  We can work on attributions later.  Also, I will copy this discussion to Talk:Fountain pen to preserve it.  Anything else?  Please reply at the new place.  Frotz (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Fountain pen ink]] Is it worth the effort?

message: I have created a general, catch-all list as "List of terms about pen and ink" to also hold terms of questionable separate notability (such as "nibmeister"). Recall that Wikipedia's WP:NOTABLE policy allows topics (or people) to be mentioned within another notable-subject article, although each of those topics (or people) do not quality for a separate article which requires "individual notability". However, those topics/people can have redirect pages (containing "#REDIRECT") to point into other articles which describe them. When a subject has "250" short topics, then they could all be defined within a very long list page, as 250 more terms related to the list subject. In that manner, WP can contain some extra detailed information, about numerous pen-and-ink topics, without having tons of tiny articles subjected to protracted debates. For more explanation, see talk-page: Talk:List of terms about pen and ink, and discuss there. -Wikid77 13:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New: List of terms about pen/ink

message: Nothing to be found on "solid-ink fountain pens", except this one sentence mentioning patents (numbers, please, since there's nothing else). Searching elsewhere comes back here or to wikipedia copies on other sites, often without attribution (it's a great way to find some of those), but that doesn't inform me.
Seems like a nicely obscure subject for some aspiring historian to dig into.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.211.113.82 (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  solid-ink fountain pens undermentioned 

message: "While cartridges are mess free"
There's optimism :) I've owned several, and they aren't.
82.31.66.207 (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cartridge & mess 

message: I took this out . See-also the section above. The original source for the text was http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?articleID=365, which is now 404. Jagged added the scholarly ref  but to the same text; it is likely that he never read the article. So the text is effectively unsourced William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  al-Mu'izz pen (again) 

message: The article says "Normal India ink cannot be used in fountain pens because it contains shellac as a binder which would very quickly clog such pens" but the article India ink says it is just soot and water. A binding agent *may* be added but not necessarily.  120.239.92.178 (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  India Ink 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The redirect Old style pen has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Silcox (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Old style pen]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]