Talk:Fountain pen ink

Improvement?

How much of an improvement is this version? S blackwelder 18:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vastly improved, but needs a source for these statements, which amount to puffery without their being pinned to somebody or some organization. You can't cite the manufacturer's site (sorry for the pun) because it is biased, and the other link, to www.inksampler.com has exactly zero information about this ink.

Also, I am wondering just how much you can say about this ink. Is it controversial? Does it break new grounds? Does it have an interesting history? Has it made the inventor a wealthy man? This ink could really be the basis for a new article on Fountain pen inks, which would list all the inks and be quite comprehensive. Really ground-breaking inks like Quink could continue to have their own articles. Just my opinion, of course, but I hope somebody follows it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you're commenting on my recent edits since S Blackwelder made his/her edits almost a year ago. Noodler's breaks new grounds in that it seems to be the first fountain pen ink that's totally resistant to fraudulent washing. I have some myself and it does indeed perform as advertised. A new article on fountain pen inks certainly sounds like a good idea. How about if we move this article to the new name and go from there? Frotz (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a good idea. If the Noodler's section gets too large within Fountain pen inks, then it can have its own article. I am not an expert in this field (or many others), so leave it to you to begin the job. The idea that it is "totally resistant to fraudulent washing" should be pinned on an outside source (not your own experience, as I am sure you must know). I suppose the hobby has magazines or newsletters or other ways of disseminating information like this. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The resistance to fraudulent washing is a claim made by the manufacturer and a reviewer of fountain pen inks. The manufacturer offers a prize of a thousand or so dollars to anyone who can sucessfully wash a check written with bulletproof ink. I'm preparing a new article now for fountain pen inks. Frotz (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain pen ink article

Here's the new article. I've included all the content from the Noodler's article and pieces from other ink articles. Frotz (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Probably too early for me to complain about lack of citations, but at least it got the Noodler's article into decent companionship. Greg Clark's home page at http://www.inksampler.com/ remains a Bad Link, however, unless I am missing something. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link is okay, but the inksampler book has been retired. Frotz (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain pen ink Is it worth the effort?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree this article improved by eliminating superfluous material. Now, I have other concerns:

I do not think Noodler's inks are so unique as to dedicate a whole paragraph to them. I am afraid that is a US-centered way of perceiving the ink scene. Similar argument for uniqueness could be found on Japanese pigmented inks.
Some of those inks are not essentially different, i. e. they are OEM by other companies and labeled accordingly. That has been noticed in some cases (Yard-o-Led and Diamine, Private Reserve and Bexley), but there are some others.
The Notes on the inks are quite random in their relevance--scented inks are offered by several manufacturers, not only De Atramentis; there are more seasonal inks than simply Montblanc's... This Notes section needs a lot more consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.64.8 (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a preliminary copyedit for encyclopedic style, removing some content I found superfluous or guidebook-like. My take on what still needs to be done:

The main thing that specific mention of Noodler's has going for it is that it's sourced in an Economist article: a major and reliable publication by Wikipedia's standards. This article needs more of that. That said, it doesn't need to be a whole paragraph dedicated to the brand, just a mention in the context of ink formulation and permanence.
I stopped short of doing this myself, but I would entirely remove the table of inks and move any notable and sourced details (such as a discussion of permanence and a mention of Noodler's Ink) to prose within the article text. The list hints at a directory, which should be avoided.
Headers/sections, perhaps Composition or Formulation, discussing the dye/pigment distinction and properties of fountain pen ink, and History if we can find some good sources on the history of dye-based inks to draw from.
Move the article to Fountain pen ink (singular) for a more generic feel. (Also related to the Directory guideline above.)

Thoughts on these proposals? /ninly_(talk) 15:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some section titles and a section on durability and security, including a (sourced) mention of Noodler's. I've also removed the list of inks, as mentioned above. Any input on possible additions is welcome. /ninly_(talk) 13:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into fountain pen?

It appears that most of the content of the article, except for the paragraph about security, has been merged into Fountain pen#Inks. Is there any reason to keep this article and not just turn it into a redirect to that section? —C.Fred (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MPRTIAL?

The picture of a bottle of ink says it is "2-mprtial-fluid-ounce "

What does "mprtial" mean? Is it imperial? It is very confusing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.41.88.61 (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be imperial. There's a template, {{Convert}}, used to convert units of measurement. That's where the typo is. I've asked for help in tracking it down. —C.Fred (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ink erasers

There are ink eraser products that remove writing when using some blue inks. Are there any editors here who know enough about how they work to add a bit here on them? Jlange (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]