Talk:Pencil/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Citation for "sleeve"

The use of "sleeve" as an industry term synonymous with the wooden casing of a common pencil is being difficult to verify. Google ngram comparing "pencil sleeve" and "pencil casing" gives an interesting result, with usage varying wildly from one decade to another in the mid twentieth century.

I believe that modern use of "sleeve" most commonly refers to the little tube at the business end of a mechanical pencil such as the ubiquitous Pentel P205, with a 4mm sleeve suitable for use with T-squares, triangles, and drawing templates.

If there is a reliable source showing the wood or other sacrificial protective outer layer of a common pencil being called a "sleeve" by manufacturers, here is the place to point it out.

cheers, Just plain Bill (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Reading the edit comments, I gather that "sleeve" is being kept in the text because it was the earliest name for the wooden casing. Google ngram shows a lot of use between 1860 and 1870, followed by spotty representation after that. I am not sure that this kind of archaic usage belongs in the first paragraph of this article.
regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

"Sleeve" is the earliest term for a pencil's wooden housing, which is a generic term for what is now still called either a pencil sleeve (mostly for wooden pencils) or a pencil barrel (mostly for mechanical pencils) relating to a pencil shaft. See Google scholar re. "pencil sleeve." The shaft may include an eraser at the stub. The "little tube at the business end of a mechanical pencil" is technically called a nib - the same thing it's called when a wooden pencil is sharpened. (Don't ask me why the article neglects to mention nibs. As always, my main concern is just the article's lead; pun intended.)

So, technically speaking, a pencil shaft comprises a sleeve or a barrel. The article's original wording (i.e. "constructed of a narrow, solid pigment core in a protective casing that prevents the core ...") bugged me solely because the entire phrase constituted a misplaced adverbial modifier, and the repetition of "core" was just poor phrasing. I substituted the generic "housing" for "casing" to help avoid the inference that a pencil case was somehow involved. IMHO, the sleeve and barrel jargon is understandable at face value. I consider the generic "housing" to be clear, but "casing" might be ambiguous for the uninitiated. I considered reverting it to housing or substituting "barrel" but it's not that big of a deal. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"Sleeve" had been tagged as needing a citation, not a scattershot google scholar link. Particulars, please, to show that "sleeve" is not archaic, from a century and a half ago. Mentions of "sleeve" in the recently added Petroski reference are plainly in the context of mechanical pencils, not wood-cased pencils. On p.54, Petroski says, "Even if the pencil lead was intact inside the wood case..."

"casing" might be ambiguous for the uninitiated is a tenuous reason to avoid using a common English term for the wood encasing a common pencil. Here is a recent patent using "encased" and "casing".

Just plain Bill (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Lack of familiarity and due diligence regarding a common term is no reason to scorn its inclusion in the article. The etymology for "sleeve" is obviously archaic since wood pencils predate mechanical ones, but its use is still current as a fossil word applied to wood and mechanical pencils. Whether a sleeve nowadays corresponds more frequently to wooden or mechanical pencils is irrelevant. The term, as commonly applied to pencils, is properly cited in the Petroski article. Moreover, the currency of sleeve is evident as used in the patent article. Both cites also occasionally use "casing," but that's beside the point of what terminology best suits THIS article. Industry folks don't mistake pencil casings for pencil cases. Readers here just might. Try rewording things with encased or encasement but leave out "casing" and leave in "sleeve." --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about pencils, not sausages, even though both have casings. The Simple English version of Wikipedia caters to ESL speakers, and may be a more appropriate venue for tiptoeing around readers' presumed unfamiliarity with ordinary English words. The patent article uses "sleeve" only once, with fifteen instances of "casing" and twenty-two of "encased." Construing that as "occasionally" strikes me as careless, if not disingenuous, on your part.

In the meantime, "sleeve" can stay, but you have no reason to exclude "casing" from the lead. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfamiliarity with ordinary English words isn't the issue. It's a matter of contextual usage. And it's not about ESL speakers; it's about readers who are generally unfamiliar with pencils. A "solid pigment core in a protective casing" invites conflation with "solid pigment core in a protective case" for the uninitiated. By contrast, a "solid pigment core encased in a [whatever]" helps to avoids that conflation for keyboard/keypad-age folks without writing experience otherwise. As for how "occasionally" strikes you, refer to Wikipedia's advice to comment on content, not on the contributor. Concerning whether "'sleeve'" can stay, see Wikipedia's notes about how what stays or goes is not up to one individual editor and the footnotes at Hubris and Overconfidence effect. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

You misrepresented a source, and claim to be a victim of a personal attack when it is pointed out. Are you serious?

readers who are generally unfamiliar with pencils... Again, are you serious? Just plain Bill (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Someone - anyone: Please explain how statements like "[XYZ] strikes me as careless, if not disingenuous, on your part" and "you have no reason to exclude [ABC]" relate the content of this article any more than this silly, time-wasting post does? The wisest among you know better than to reply. (As a fan of apophasis, I won't mention the prior post as a separate instance of violating Wikipedia's warning to comment on content, not on the contributor.) Cheers for eyerolling and joining me to let the water from Hanlon's Razor roll off our collective backs.

Back to serious business: Is there a consensus for deleting the entire article on pencils? Apparently, every reader everywhere is familiar with them. Or, maybe we should merge it with the article on metonymy for the benefit of editors who can't work out the figurative meaning of "pencils"? --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

RE 1.3 - Sources cite each other as their sources?

The article states:

Around 1560,[19] an Italian couple named Simonio and Lyndiana Bernacotti made what are likely the first blueprints for the modern, wood-encased carpentry pencil. Their version was a flat, oval, more compact type of pencil. Their concept involved the hollowing out of a stick of juniper wood. Shortly thereafter, a superior technique was discovered: two wooden halves were carved, a graphite stick inserted, and the halves then glued together—essentially the same method in use to this day.[20]

Citations 19 and 20 cite a website created by a singular person with no evident qualifications or first hand knowledge to give ideas as facts. The creator of the website lists no verifiable sources and copies Encyclopedia Britannica word for word without proper credit. It also has a link within the information that cites this Wikipedia article - which cited the website! I can't find evidence anywhere to support the theory that Simonio and Lyndiana Bernacotti created the first encased pencil. Every website I find seems to cite this Wikipedia article as their source. Also, the only websites I can find that mention these names are personally funded websites with no credentials or primary source evidence.

9B pencil

It should be neat and clearly explained with a sweet voice 2409:4071:4D80:EA89:C24C:34E3:E414:8F23 (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2023

Seed Pencil: An Environmentally Friendly Alternative to Traditional Pencils

As people become more environmentally aware, they seek alternatives to everyday products that harm our planet. One such item is the traditional pencil, which requires wood and graphite - two resources which cannot be replenished. Thankfully, there is now a sustainable option on the market: The Seed Pencil. Not only does this reduce waste but also preserve our natural resources - helping conserve them!

What is a Seed Pencil? The Seed Pencil is an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional pencils. Instead of using wood and graphite, this pencil is made from recycled paper infused with seeds. When you are finished using it, simply plant it in soil and watch as your seed sprout into an actual plant!

The Seed Pencil is available in an array of colors and standard or mechanical pencil styles. Additionally, you can choose from different seed varieties like basil, mint or sunflower.

Why Opt for a Seed Pencil? There are several reasons why someone might opt for a Seed Pencil instead of traditional pencil. Primarily, these eco-friendly devices use recycled paper and plant-based materials which reduce waste while conserving our natural resources.

Seed Pencils offer an engaging and fun way to promote sustainability. By planting your used pencil in a garden, children can watch it blossom into an inspiring plant - providing an engaging teaching tool about the importance of taking care of our environment.

Seed Pencils are an ideal choice for businesses and organizations seeking eco-friendly promotional items. By giving out Seed Pencils at events, businesses can demonstrate their dedication to sustainability while also offering a practical, useful, and memorable giveaway.

Where Can You Purchase Seed Pencils?

Seed Pencils have grown increasingly popular, and can now be found at both online retailers and physical locations. When shopping for Seed Pencils, make sure the company you buy from is reliable and uses high-quality materials. Ecosave is renowned for producing top-notch Seed Pencils. Their pencils are made from recycled paper and filled with non-GMO seeds, making them an environmentally friendly choice that offers excellent quality. You can visit Ecosave site and can buy plantable stationeries.

FAQs Q: How long does it take for the Seed Pencil to grow into a plant? A: The time it takes for your Seed Pencil to sprout depends on the variety of seed you plant and its growing conditions. Generally, it takes anywhere from one to four weeks for it to sprout.

Q: Can I plant the Seed Pencil indoors? Absolutely, you can. As long as it receives adequate light and water, then you're good to go.

Q: Are Seed Pencils more expensive than traditional pencils? A: No, Seed Pencils tend to be priced similarly to traditional pencils, making them a cost-effective solution for those searching for eco-friendly alternatives.

Q: Can I select which seeds are included in a Seed Pencil? A: Yes, some companies provide different seed options so you can pick which plant type best suits your needs.

Q: Are Seed Pencils only available in certain countries? No, Seed Pencils have become increasingly popular around the world and can now be found in numerous locations.

The Seed Pencil is an eco-friendly alternative to traditional pencils that helps reduce waste and preserve our natural resources. Made with recycled paper and infusing non-GMO seeds, Seed Pencils offer a fun yet practical way to promote sustainability while being cost-effective at the same time. Whether you're a student, business owner, or looking for an eco-friendly gift - Seed Pencils make excellent choices.

Buy Seed-Pencils from the best brand in India Ecosave (talk) 06:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Not done, promotional. --Mvqr (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"Portable hand-held communications inscriber" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Portable hand-held communications inscriber and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 7#Portable hand-held communications inscriber until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)