Talk:Nib (pen)

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article was a fair start, but it needs a good deal of polishing. I worked a bit on formatting, and I added it to the Writing Instruments category, but now I have to get back to work and there's still more to do. The article needs copyediting, and I'm fairly sure I didn't source that image properly. (For one thing, I looked at the source and didn't see the image anywhere.) If you look at previous versions of the article, I hope you'll agree that I've improved the format, but that's about all I can say. I wish I could promise that I'll be back to finish what I've started, but experience tells me that I'm unlikely to do so. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 22:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems a bit biased. It says "...metal nibs do not write as well as quill pens....". First of all it's not cited but most of it certainly seems accurate. But "not writing as well" is very subjective and IMO doesn't belong on wikipedia most of the time. Personally i think metal nibs write BETTER for me than quills, but just like the opposite opinion, it's neither here nor there. I'm nominated it to be checked. It's not a very active article as far as editing goes but hopefully someone will check it. It's basically like saying "quill pens are better for writing" and then citing a couple advantages that metal pens have to try and make up for it and be neutral. I think it should be something like "quill pens have a smoother ink flow" or something that lets people come to their own conclusions on which is 'better'. I forgot i wasn't logged in when i put the POV checks in there, and i think putting one at the top of the article and in the section is a bit redundant: IIRC there's a way to nominate the article and specify the whole section, but i can't recall how to do it as i'm not exactly a super-wikipedia-editor or anything. It just seems non-NPOV to me. Anyways, even though i forgot to log in before i put them in it was I who put the POV tags (or whatever you call them) in. -Indalcecio (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see more than just that one statement listed as being in violation of

WP:NPOV, but I'd say for sure that it does violate it. Being minor as it is, I'm removing both occurrences of Template:POV from the article. Considering the nature of that specific statement, being both unsourced and subjective/probably biased, I will mark it with Template:Dubious, which I think makes for a good warning to readers. After all, I feel that's the main worry- that a reader may take that statement as true or at least reasonably established, and marking the whole article, or even the individual section isn't going to make that very claim stand out as easily. And no matter what, a POV check is only going to result in agreement that the article lacks sources, and at best the removal of that statement. Mendaliv (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the current information is a bit inaccurate, or at least incongruent with current nomenclature among fountain pen users (e.g. "Broad" nib sounds like a description of an italic nib). I think it should be subheaded into Sizes, Shapes, and Flexibility. Size being (extra fine), fine, medium, broad, (double broad), and perhaps mentioning Accountant, &c. Shape being round, italic, stub, and perhaps mentioning special nibs like Nagahara nibs for Sailor pens. Flexibility being how flexible the nib is. Maybe a short "other" section that talks about feedback, and other stuff. Also, I think 'Characteristics' is far more suiting than 'Type'. Anyway, I could do all of these things now but I have to dig up some sources first. Amaberis (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duckbill

I'm missing the term duckbill in the description. Many broad/flat nibs are advertised as duckbill. --Manorainjan 00:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should we discuss graphic tablet pen nibs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.167.206 (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about including these images of special types of nibs? They're from the German Wikipedia but I translated the titles of most of them into English.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:01Bandzugfeder_mit_Strich_und_Schriftbeispiel.jpg

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Spitzfeder_mit_Strich_und_Schriftbeispiel.jpg

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:07Redisfeder_mit_Strich_und_Schriftbeispiel.jpg

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:02Doppelstrichfeder_mit_Strich_und_Schriftbeispiel.jpg

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:05Notenfeder_mit_Strich_und_Schriftbeispiel.jpg

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:04Ellenbogenfeder_mit_Strich_und_Schriftbeispiel.jpg

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:08Plakatfeder_mit_Strich_und_Schriftbeispiel.jpg

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:06Rechteckplattenfeder_mit_Strich_und_Schriftbeispiel.jpg

--89.247.106.118 (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]