Talk:Typewriter/Archives/2013

Untitled

the link for reference #16 is down —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.94.244 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

More on Shift lock

On reading the line about the shift lock function: Unlike the today's Caps Lock, however, the Shift Lock was a two-key operation: Shift would be held down, and the Shift Lock (normally directly above) would be pressed simultaneously, triggering a simple lock mechanism. I had to do a double take. I own several manual typewriters made from the 1920's to the 1960's of different US make, and, in using the shift lock, it is a single finger operation. On most of them all you have to do is just push down, the way the button is pivoted provides the "locking" motion without the extra push descried above. Also, there are some interesting variations. Some have shift lock keys on both sides, while those with only one have it on the left. On most it doesn't matter which side shift key you tap to unlock the shift.-WK- this is not right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.42.65 (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

First typewriter by W. Burt?

Hm. While doing a day page update I found this fact which contradicts with the text of this article: "On July 23, 1829 in the United States, William Burt patented the first typewriter." If this is wrong please delete that entry from July 23 and 1829. --mav 05:42 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You know, that name sounds familiar. This needs to be researched further. I seem to recall that, as with so many "inventions," the invention of the typewriter is highly disputable because of ambiguity as to what should be considered to be a typewriter, hence the statements are usually qualified as "first practical typewriter," etc. I do remember that there was a generation of early typewriters in which the typebars struck the underside of the platen; the operator could not see what was being typed at the time it was typed; it only became visible several lines later as the text scrolled around into view. Thus, the development of so-called "visible typewriters" was a major breakthrough. Google, click, click, ah, here is Burt's "Typographer:" William Austin Burt's Typographer 1829

Now largely obsolete?

It is now largely obsolete, having been widely replaced by the personal computer and printer.

"It is now largely obsolete." -- is this true? For the whole world, or just developed countries? -- Tarquin 23:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, yes. As soon as the ability to write entire screens of text that you could both freely edit and save as files (as you get with a a computer) was combined with a line printer the computer did the typewriter's job better. The moment typefaces on computers became truly versatile (a typewriter can only print the characters that are physically installed in its printing device) and attached to a laser or inkjet printer it was faster and more versatile. The typewriter lives on a purely textual mechanical device. I have a small, used one on my desk because I think they're a very interesting piece of history but next to that is my laptop which I use because it does much more than just type out text - images as well as Internet access. The benefit of a manual typewriter is that they do not need a constant supply of power and so are useful in situations where the power supply is erratic. That's not limited to the developing world but it is more common there. Electric typewriters do not have this advantage and they are pretty much entirely replaced with computers for typing tasks unless they happened to have an older typewriter lying about, they're relatively common but are certainly, to use the ordinary meaning of the word, obselete now.

The developing world is less wealthy than the first world but it is not so much so that their newspapers aren't typed with computers. You may not see computers in the middle of famines or civil wars but that is because the people have other concerns than how they type their letters. Typewriters hang on with people who appreciate them as retro curiosities and as pieces of engineering but they are no longer useful in the wider scheme of things.

High quality article!

I ran across this page because it was 'featured' on the main page. I've got to say that I'm really impressed. This is the quality of a 'real' encyclopedia article; something all users should strive for. My faith in Wikipedia is renewed. ike9898 17:17, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Second. Tempshill 01:01, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I also agree. I see that this page is already listed at Wikipedia:Brilliant prose, so others before us thought the same way. --mav 05:04, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, good article, but...

Yes, the article is exemplary, but there is a fault at the beginning and another fault or series of goofs at the end. The beginning is a bit too production centered. It is correct to give the most place to the mass produced Sholes-Glidden typewriter, but at the same time there should be mention of those earlier typewriters who were not mass produced but who were solidly designed and put together in the hundreds by artisans in the 1840s and 1850s, in Europe as well as in the US. A few were little works of art, in heavy steel and/or fine brass, like the semi-spherical Malling-Hansen writing ball of 1865 which I had the pleasure to see in the Danish Science Museum.see: http://www.typewritermuseum.org/collection/brands/index.php3?machine=hansen&cat=kd Many were produced specifically for the blind, for institutional use in general in sometimes high numbers. Some printed with ink to paper while others embossed heavy paper which then could be read by touch. I am not about to do this correction since I am no good at writing brilliant prose and do not have reference books on this at hand. On the other hand, I will do some corrections at the bottom of the page where some of the links do not seem to have been placed where they should be. I am always happy when somebody links to an article I have started and largely edited, like Office of the future but the way it is placed makes it look as if Desk (which I also started) is a sub-element. And somehow, the link to the Wooton desk article is next, which is really weird, because, as a variant of the Fall front desk the Wooton desk is one of the worst possible desks on which to plunk a typewriter! I really have to finish my sketch of the Wooton, and get that Typewriter desk article on line! AlainV 04:09, 2004 Jan 15 (UTC)

Index typewriters

How to intergrate information about "index typewriters" (http://typewriter.rydia.net/indextw.htm)? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Typists called "typewriters," too

The previous caption ("Typist typing on a typewriter") was inaccurate, as typists were called "typewriters" at the time of the illustration. It doesn't look right now as the caption is too long, but I haven't quite figured out what to do about it. As an example of the usage: O. Henry, in his story Springtime a la Carte, describes his heroine as "a free-lance typewriter" (who did odd jobs of typing, such as restaurant menus). I don't know exactly when the word typist was introduced. Similarly, during the 1940s are thereabouts, women (well, they always were women) who operated rotary calculators were called "computers." Dpbsmith 13:54, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Remington electrics lest common?

I wonder about the statement that Remington electrics were the least common electric typewriters prior to the IBM Selectric. Prior to the Selectric, IBM electric typewriters were very, very not popular. And, of course, the proportional-spacing IBM Executive.

IBMs were much,much lower quality, and almost universally used where long life, dependability, and availability of service was non-important. They were, however, much more cheap. As a repairman for IBM I had a feeling one of the most popular electrics was the lowly Corona electrics (can't remember the model names). They were quite simple and cheap, but well designed and reliable for average use. Wake 03:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Origin of the IBM Selectric golf ball I have always understood the invention of the golf ball typewriter to have been that of Remington; that it was cunningly stolen from them by IBM who contracted for exclusive use of it as a computer printer ie no other computer manufacturers would have the right to use them as printers, but through legal slight of hand then claimed exclusive right to manufacture for any use. Thus they eliminated their biggest competitor! This was the story commonly circulating in the 60's and 70's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.1.175 (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

All-mechanical IBM electrics

I wanted to insert a comment about the all-mechanical nature of the IBM (pre-Selectric) electric typewriter, but am not certain (though reasonably sure) it applied to other brands. The only electric component in the IBM electric typewriter was a motor which drove a wide cylinder. This cylinder could equally well have been driven by steam, and was the only powered thing in the machine. There sort of was a direct mechanical connection between key and typebar. The action of the key did not move the typebar directly, but instead pressed a cam against the rotating cylinder. The cam was some kind of high-friction rubber and got slightly wider as it turned, so once engaged it forced itself more tightly against the cylinder, giving a very positive action.

Actually the key moved a latch, releasing the cam, which was spring loaded, and allowing it to rotate into contact the rubber-coated cylinder (the proper name is "power roll"). The cam was all metal, and had a notched surface where it contacted the power roll. Wake 03:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Selectric was also mechanical except for the motor itself, and used an unbelievably sophisticated mechanical arrangement to achieve its miracle. I have to wonder whether the IBM Selectric and the rotary calculators represented some kind of zenith of mechanical design, as the use of multiple electromechanical devices, tiny motors, and microprocessor controls have done for the design of individual devices what the invention of the electric motor did for factories....

The selectric did, in deed, only have one electrical part (the motor). I was always amazed at the accuracy that was achieved in rotating and tilting the ball to almost the correct place, at which time a pair of locking bars moved into the toothed bottom edge (and rocker for tilt) to lock it in place. The rotate "tape" was at least double the length of the platen, and must have had a lot of stretch and flopping going on. Wake 03:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Selectric Composer

In case the editor who corrected my comment doesn't read his talk page, and to open the discussion up, I'm repeating what I put on his talk page here. I was the one who put in the line about IBM never introducing a proportionally-spaced Selectric. I wrote it off the top of my head based on my life experience, without checking. (Yes, I know...) After reading the recent correction and Googling on "Selectric Composer" I'm beginning to suspect that my original comment was just plain wrong, and the line about Selectrics not being proportionally spaced should be rewritten. Here's what puzzles me. I was about twenty years old in 1966. During the sixties and seventies, I saw IBM Executive typewriters in business offices on perhaps half-a-dozen occasions; occasionally received proportionally-spaced business letters; and of course saw various books, typically academic, that had been "typeset" with an IBM Executive. I was also vaguely aware of phototypesetting machines such as the Photon. But I never learned of the existence of the Selectric Composer until today. When the Selectric took over, one of the obvious things I noticed was the visible replacement of inked-ribbon typing with carbon-film typing. But to the best of my knowledge I don't ever remember seeing a piece of paper with proportionally-spaced carbon-film typing on it. Furthermore, I remember some enthusiastic professors with too much grant money who loved the idea of changeable font balls and bought Selectrics with literally dozens of fonts, and I never recall any of them saying anything about wishing they could have afforded a Selectric Composer, or anything like that. And, to the best of my recollection, the amount of "casual" proportionally-spaced printing I saw actually declined in the seventies and early eighties, only to come back with the advent of laser printers. (And daisywheels, but only when driven by computer software). Now, this could just be a peculiarity of my own life experience, but I'm wondering what your comments might be. Did the Selectric Composer cost far more than the old IBM Executives? Did they require too much training to use? Was there a culture change of some kind? Why weren't Selectric Composers more evident as high-end, high-prestige, or gadget-lovers' typewriters? Or were they, and is it just me that didn't know about it? Dpbsmith 12:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Composer was rare because it was extremely expensive compared to the Executive. "Exec"s sold for about $1000, and the Composers were at least ten times that. The only ones I ever saw while working for IBM were at small publishing places, like catalog sales companies. There was a model called the MTSC (Mag Tape Selectric Composer), that could record stuff on tape for later playback. Those were really expensive!

One of my customers in Marblehead MA had several Executives on which they created documentation pamplets and documentation for GE. A very nice-looking offset-ready copy could be produced that way, but it sure kept me busy adjusting and replacing typebars, etc.

Wake 04:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've edited that section some more to clarify things. It is complicated.

Basically, the Selectric Composer was the only electromechanical Selectric typewriter that had proportional spacing, and it was indeed made for typesetting.

But there was the later electronic Model 50 that was a proportionally-spaced typewriter, comparable to the proportional spacing often found with daisywheels.

That much I found on the page. But the Selectric Composer had electronic successors. And there were the electronic typewriters Model 65 and 85 which could use the same proportional-spacing elements as the Model 50.

But what is more obscure - the White House had one of those - is the Mag Card Executive. This pioneered the typestyles later used with the 96-character Model 50, but on an 88 character element. And it even had a Symbol Proportional element, which was never converted to 96 characters. I first heard about it through a mention in information I got from Camwil. Quadibloc (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Bells and Carriage Returns

Alas, I guess it's a sign of the times that there has to be a lengthy caption under a picture on the article page explaining typewriters had things called bells, with carriage return levers to return the carriage to the beginning of the next line.... Are typewriters so completely a thing of the past now, already, so soon? -Sewing - talk 07:31, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has sound files of the noises made by typewriters? Seems to me they'd be a good thing to have.

As to being a "thing of the past," the widespread discussion about whether the letters about Bush's military service are forged shows that, yes, they are a thing of the past. I heard an NPR commentator say that "typewriters produce proportionally spaced characters, whereas the letters were not proportionally spaced," getting it exactly backwards. Nobody has yet commented on the fact that IBM Executive typewriters produced only four different widths of character, and I don't think any common computer fonts have this characteristic, meaning that it should be possible to determine by careful measurement whether the letters were typed by an IBM Executive or not. I don't know anything about the Selectric Composer. I do NOT recall a superscript "th" key as being common, then, and presumably there would have had to be "nd" and "st" keys as well...

Anyway, it's clear that typewriters are now a distant memory and the province of forensic experts.

When the dust settles, there should probably be a paragraph or two about this added to the article.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) Holey Moley! Typewriters are sure enough in the distant past for most people because nobody has thought to mention the dozens of other ways police lab experts had (and still have I hope) of determining exactly which individual typewriter (not just the brand or model, I really mean the precise unique one) had been used to compose a given document. These were analog machines and complex ones at that. While the parts were usually well made and well assembled the constant wear and tear by different types of hands in different environments ensured that the output of each machine quickly became unique because of variations in the angle of the stroke, its force, variations in ink pad wear,etc. I think any reporter can be excused (up to a point) for getting proportional and non-proportional output mixed, because even in the 1950s or 1960s a lay person (which meant most non-typing males in any given office environment) could not tell apart a common typewriter from a rare composing machine (which could do proportional typing), apart form noticing the greater number of adjustment wheels and levers. AlainV 05:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What's personally driving me bananas, though, is that although I can recall many examples of things typed on an IBM Executive and can easily believe that they might have found their way into the military--as their name suggested, they were almost de rigeur for high-ranking civilians, the most senior secretary in any big office had them, I once personally received a letter from the office of the director of the Mount Palomar Observatory that was typed on one, a lot of places that produced internal publications that were going to be Multilithed had them to give a "printed look...."

...but what I canNOT remember was whether it was at all common for typewriters to have individual typebars, or invidual characters on typeballs, to print a miniature, superscripted "th." Presumably there would have had to be at least THREE special typebars, with "st," "rd", and "th" on them. I do know that it was not at all hard to get typewriters made with custom typebars--I owned one. They had a huge catalog of random characters and you could say, "OK, make the upper-case numeral 5 a square root sign and the upper-case 6 an infinity sign." I'm talking about a Royal manual typewriter here, and to the best of my very weak recollection a standard typewriter might have cost around $300 or $400 or so, and the price for replacing a standard key with a custom key combination was around $15 or $20 per key, so it wasn't all that prohibitive. However, there were only a limited number of keys to use, as you couldn't add EXTRA keys. After you'd replaced the upper-case period and the upper-case comma, you would have to start replacing useful keys like the at-sign with something else.

Of course a lot of typewriters DID have single keys for 1/2, 1/4, and IIRC 3/4, and I can easily imagine that the military might have preferred to replace these with "th", "rd", and "st" to give 101st, etc. a nice look. But was this a common thing?

You'd think someone would know.... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, someone point out that the government, and presumably the military, used to use a standard paper size of 8 x 11 rather than 8-1/2 by 11 and asked whether there was evidence of that in the photocopies. I thought that was a good question. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should the article make clear what purpose the bell served? I hope so, because I can no longer remember if the bell alerted the typist to the right margin, or whether it sounded when the platen (roller) was pushed back to the left margin. I'm guessing it was the former. Eye.earth (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ask Leroy Anderson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.158 (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

GFDL notice

This notice provides GFDL-compliant history should the article on Barbara Blackburn be deleted. The paragraph on Barbara Blackburn is based on the article Barbara Blackburn by User:PhilHibbs, modified by Dpbsmith (talk) 15:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC). The edit history of the Barbara Blackburn article is (cur) (last) 08:47, 25 Jan 2005 PhilHibbs m (cur) (last) 08:02, 25 Jan 2005 PhilHibbs m (cur) (last) 07:07, 25 Jan 2005 LeeHunter (added VFD notice) (cur) (last) 06:54, 25 Jan 2005 PhilHibbs m (Fastest typist) and the content, before editing by Dpbsmith (talk), was:

Barbara Blackburn is the fastest typist in the world, according to The Guinness Book of World Records. She can achieved a sustained rate of 150wpm, and up to 170wpm on the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard.

Request for references

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. If some of the external links are reliable sources and were used as references, they can be placed in a References section too. See the cite sources link for how to format them. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 19:44, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm particularly interested in: "As of 2005, Barbara Blackburn is the fastest typist in the world, according to The Guinness Book of World Records." -- the Guiness Book no longer lists "fastest typist" as a record. The closest I could come is this page that claims the record is in the Guiness Book, US 23/e. Can anyone who has a copy of that book verify that the record is recorded there? -- Dossy Shiobara 13:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Selectric used dry-lift off, not white out.

Under the section "Correction Methods", the article states (or implies) that the IBM Selectric used a black ribbon with white cover-up to correct mistakes. This is untrue -- rather it uses a gummy lift-off tape to literally lift off the carbon ink from the page. Early electric typebar machines did indeed use the black/white ribbon (sometimes called "bichrome"), but the white cover-up had the unfortunate propensity to dry out and flake off inside the machines, thus causing the machines to jam up over time (like the article also mentions about erasers). Silver Reeds, for example, were notorious for this problem. Thus the Selectric's lift-off solution is much more elegant, as it is the cleanest of all correction methods. (Wet white-out sticks to platens and feed rollers, dry white-out flakes, erasers crumble.) It is accomplished by using a ribbon made of plastic film with carbon powder adhered to the paper-facing side. Imagine a strip of (single-sided) scotch tape stuck sticky-side down into laser toner. The carbon ink is not fully dry when first struck onto the paper, and thus can be removed by backing up the carriage and typing over the letter through the sticky lift-off tape. The carbon is supposed to take about 24 hours to dry, after which point it cannot be lifted off the page; until it is dry, however, it can unfortunately also be smeared. The one major drawback of the carbon ribbon/lift-off tape combination is that, unlike a fabric ribbon which can be reused repeatedly until the ink is too light for the typist's taste, a carbon ribbon may only be used once. When a letter is struck it removes all the carbon on the ribbon in the shape of that letter, and thus one could read a used carbon ribbon as a backward-written and negative image of everything ever typed on it. Actually, this is slightly untrue: many Selectric ribbons are 3-character-widths wide, which means that the element strikes the ribbon successively at three different heights, leaving three rows of character impressions on on top of the other...

---

l i k e   9 6 3
t h i s   8 5 2
t h e n   7 4 1

---

Fabric ribbons were available for Selectrics at the time, although they would have to be corrected by other (traditional) means. Typing instructors in particular preferred to use non-correctable ribbons, as a student's mistakes could not be erased. Another mistake: no Selectric ever had "character memory", one has to manually retype the appropriate letter to correct it. The Selectric is not an electronic machine, and thus would have had no way of remembering that sort of thing. Also perhaps worth mentioning - the Selectric II was the first Selectric available with correction, and it was developed after the II was already on the market (i.e. early Selectric IIs had no correction). To finish beating this dead horse... the Selectric lift-off tapes were gummier than the dry correction used on later electronic machines, because the Selectric's mechanisms were not precise enough to ensure that a backspaced carriage would be *precisely* over the already-printed character, and thus are made over-sticky to allow for some margin of error. With the introduction of more precise electronic mechanisms, stepping motors, and daisy wheel elements, the carriage position could be more certain and less-tacky tapes were necessary. cheers- Danny

Typewriter trivia

"Typewriter" is the longest word that can be typed on the top row of the QWERTY keyboard. (What are the longest words for other keyboards?) Jackiespeel 17:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Alaska is the only State that can be typed on one row of the keyboard MrMarmite (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Something is off with the history section

The history currently listed does not seem to be able to accommodate the following information, which I found in No Pity: People With Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement: "[T]he first successful typewriter, patented by Charles Thurber in 1843, was conceived as an aid to the blind" (Shapiro 233). Thurber is mentioned in the article, but there is no mention of him even receiving a patent, let alone his motivations for getting one. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold!

Atlant 13:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, of course. :) I just wasn't sure if it was the same Thurber. But since no one else is telling me there's an issue, I will go ahead and add the info. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Other writing systems

I came to this article in the hope to find also information about typewriters using Non-European alphabets, like Devanāgarī script (there are some, see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Hindi_typewriter.jpg ). Does somebody know something about this? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 17:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Arabic, Chinese, Cyrilic,...etc. Typewriters

Technologies for typewriting other scripts should be included

I agree. The article, as it stands, implies that the United States achieved dominance in the worldwide typewriter market, and did so by successfully exporting typewriters across the world, where typewriters did not exist. Although I suspect that that position is incorrect, somebody needs to fix the main article and address that issue. I'm also curious about typewriters capable of writing Hebrew. Surely there was a healthy market for Hebrew typewriters in Germany before WWII, and the market for that kind of a writing machine probably wiped out in the 1940s, did the market ever recover after WWII?198.177.27.22 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Did the Soviet Union lose the Cold War because they were still using quill and paper to write out their letters to one and another? At a time when the United States was already moving on to computer keyboards? 216.99.201.129 (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Questionable Brazilian edits

i'm removing the following; it was added by someone who made a highly POV change to the page on santos-dumont, and the documentation for these claims is very sketchy. it appears to be an attempt to translate a few pages in portuguese that make the same claims, again referring only to "many historians". Benwing 23:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

File:Azevedotw.jpg

Fr. Azevedo's typewriter

Fr. Francisco João de Azevedo, Brazilian, made his own typewriter in 1861 with poor materials, such as wood and knifes. D. Pedro I, the Brazilian emperor on the refered year, presented Fr. Azevedo with a gold medal by the invent, which should have been exposed in London International Exposition, but by some problems, his typewriter was never exposed.

Many historians claims that Azevedo's prototype was transfered to USA or England by a foregn and the first patent was registrad 12 years later. Miguel Milano, the writer of Azevedo's biography, confirms that "there was no doubt that the Brazilian and the North-American [Sholes model] was the same machine. Neither the pedal was removed, despite the fact it was perfectly available".

It was me the one who made the modifiations and I really don't know why did you call them "questionable". The story about Fr. Azevedo is a fact, supported by many books. I'll list some of them, as well as official websites with the entire biography of Franciso Azevedo.

You can use some translator tool such as AltaVista Babelfish if you can't read portuguese.

Some websites

* http://inventabrasilnet.t5.com.br/maqesc.htm - Description of his whole life.

* http://www.geocities.com/acadletras/padre.htm - Another good site.

* http://ctjovem.mct.gov.br/index.php?action=/content/view&cod_objeto=14989 - An article supporting Francisco Azevedo as the real inventor of the first typewriter from the Brazilian Federal Government - Science and Technology Department Ministry official site.

Some books

* NOGUEIRA, Ataliba - "Um inventor brasileiro" (A Brazilian inventor) - 1934

* BASTOS, Sebastião Azevedo - "Biografia de Padre Azevedo" (Fr. Azevedo Biography)

* ROMEIRO, Silvio - "Carta ao Gazeta de Noticias"

"However Francisco Azevedo was the Brazilian priest, in 1861, to construct the first model that functioned as a typewriter, presented in the International fair of Recife of that year. But never it arrived to be manufactured in series and its archetype was destroyed." -- Translated Brazilian government website

After this, I'll revert your edition. If you studied more, you would know that Brazilians are the real inventors of Radio (Fr. Landell de Moura), Airplane (Santos Dumont), Typewriter (Fr. Azevedo), Phone Call Id and more...

--Mrzero 00:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) If you wan to say that Glidden and Sholes copied their design on the brasilian typewriter you have to explain how. Does it have to do with print visibility? The keyboard? What? The picture you put up of father Azevedo's typewriter shows a machine which bears no ressembance to the Glidden Sholes machine. --AlainV 02:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying two things:

1) Azevedo's made a prototype of a typewriter in 1861

2) Some Brazilian's authors and the Brazilian Government consider him the real inventor of the typewriter.

This two information are facts and cannot be ignored. On the other hand, the story about Sholes and Glidden stealing is just a theory supported by some.

--Mrzero 02:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction of correction paper

In the Correction methods section, it mentions that correction paper was introduced in the seventies, but on the Tipp-Ex page, it mentions that Tipp-Ex introduced a form of correction paper back in 1959 [1]. I'm not sure if the original authour was refering to correction paper in general, or just one specific brand (Ko-Rec-Type), so I have left the Correction methods section unchanged for now. Ae-a 09:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Advertisement?

There seems to be an advertisement for typingtest.com that has been snuck into the article. Can someone look into this? An encyclopedia is NOT the place for advertising. 136.165.66.73 00:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I removed it.

Atlant 16:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Blackburn

"As of 2005, Barbara Blackburn is the fastest typist in the world, according to The Guinness Book of World Records. Using the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard, she has maintained 150 word/min for 50 min, 170 word/min for shorter periods of time, and has been clocked at a peak speed of 212 word/min" Is there another source on this? The one cited is the only one I've ever seen and everything on this woman makes reference to it. 69.28.40.34 23:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Timeline: inviting comments

This is a fine article and fun to read. However, I'm not entirely comfortable with this sentence from the top, By the 1980s, however, word processor applications on personal computers largely overtook the tasks previously done with typewriters. I'm not certain that it's factually accurate, and even if it is By the 1980s... tastes a little like 1980 and I'm not certain that alot of the world had even heard of PCs by then. I'd be happier with a rephrase, such as, By the 1990s... or, During the 1980s... And now that I'm thinking about it, I recall working for a large aerospace corp in the early 80s and the big deal in the accounting department came when their electric-driven adding machines were replaced by electronic calculators. There wasn't a PC in sight. So maybe some fact-checking is needed on this point. (Kudos to the authors here, in any case.) Cryptonymius 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

uncited still cary the habit sentence moved to discussion

“ Some still carry the habit of using the letter l instead of the numeral 1 with them when typing on a computer, sometimes leading to errors, especially when working with numerical data. ”

Still uncited, moved to discussion pending citation.StudyAndBeWise 03:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree the lack of a reference about leading to errors is unsupported (I am the author). I had recently read The Louisville Encyclopedia and noticed the use of 'l' for '1'. Years ago as a programmer I ran into a user that caused some minor problems with the substitution, but it was a rare occurrence, not notable at all. No further discussion is needed. Thanks for cleaning it up. Wake 03:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure this needs a citation? Many computer programs and numeric input forms simply ignore non-numeric characters, so if an operator who intends to enter, say, 180, actually enters l80 (lowercase l), the "l" will be ignored and the program will store 80, an erroneous value. It's still a common mistake... just pick any year with a "1" in it (e.g. 1997), change the 1 to an l, and search Wikipedia for it... you'll see several results! If nothing else, this mistake skews search results. 28bytes 20:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions to Europe Brother LW-Series Wordprozessor

Actually I'm looking for informations about the Brother typewriter series called in Europe LW. I don't know which name this machines have had in US. I know only, the new versions was sell in US as Brother pdp ... cj I'm looking special for the LW-20, LW-30, LW-400 and LW-100 This word processors had an 3.5" Disc, daisy wheel and formated normal discs not in DD or HD. The format is 240 KB. On each disc you could put 63 documents. I hope someone could help me. I've a conversion problem, because the disc is not writable or readable on a PC. The most other LW's are able to do this. Fragezeichen 23:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Contribution to Culture?

Need to eliminate the section about the contributions of the typewriter to culture, as it goes far beyond women in the workforce and pornography. This is condescending. --216.102.136.4 23:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the influence of the typewriter on culture goes beyond women in the workforce, but that was a substantial part of it. Why do you see the section as condescending? The attitudes it documents obviously were, but I think the section should be judged on whether it gives an accurate portrayal of the culture. It seems to me it does; the tasteless jokes about bosses chasing secretaries were part of plays, books, and burlesque around the turn of the century. And if not, it is better to improve the section than delete it, censoring a part of our cultural history just because someone might be offended. As a culture, we won't know where we're going unless we remember where we've been; warts, sexism, and all. --Chetvorno^TALK 05:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Glaring omission

Maybe I noticed it right away because I came here looking for it: the ribbon was invented in 1886 (it seems)... HOW did earlier typewriters mark paper?
The information is probably hard to find for many models, but surely there were some common elements. I can't imagine anyone hand-inking each character before it was struck!! Twang (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Karl Drais

Could someone who actually knows what they're talking about add a bit on Karl Drais, since he apparently created an early typewriter and stenotype. Alx xlA (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

'in pop culture' section

I've restored this section that was deleted without discussion or use of warning templates on Sept. 9, with the note that it was 'unsourced trivia'.

'... in popular culture' sections are ubiquitous in WP, and this one seemed to be singled out improperly. Sourcing should be supplied for *some* entries (some can be checked in related articles - e.g. LeRoy Anderson - ) but that should have been handled by putting up a warning template for a time before the exorcism. Twang (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment about movie in culture section moved here

"*Maybe someone more skilled in Wikiwork can clean this up, add a few details, link to the film, etc., and also link up "pathetic fallacy" to what I hope and expect are abundant relevant entries elsewhere on wikipedia. Then feel free to delete this asterisk. Thanks, Jamie F." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xproudfoot (talk • contribs) 04:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a great article

So, this really is a descriptive article on what a typewriter really is! I want a typewriter, since the computer is always busy, so I can type my newspaper articles from there. I learned a lot about what a typewriter is, and how it works. I learned its origin, and early development. Overall I loved this article. --Proctor baby101 (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

0 at the wrong end

Is there any historical reason why the 0 appears to the right of the 9 rather then to the left of the 1 other than humans inability to cope with the number zero? MrMarmite (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a couple of guesses. One: People don't usually begin counting at "zero", but, instead, they begin counting from "one". Therefore, the first number on the typewriter keyboard (for those used to reading from left to right) is "one". Think of the "zero" key taking the place of the number "ten". Two: Early Latin alphabet typewriters didn't have a "1" key. (The letter "l" - lowercase "L" - took its place.) Probably, when the keyboard layout was being developed, it would have looked a little too bizarre with the numbers running "0", "2", "3", etc., because people would instantly notice that part of the normal sequence is missing. It's noticeable when "2" begins the sequence, but, maybe, not as glaring. --Ericdn (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Older typewriters that didn't have a one key usually didn't have a zero key either. Typists used uppercase O for zero, and if it was necessary to distinguish the two put a stroke through the zero. Once the positioning of 2-9 was fixed relative to the rest of the keys, adding both one and zero on the left would spoil the symmetry, and if the relative position were changed touch typists would hit the wrong key. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Typewriter drawing

How should this (http://books.google.com/books?id=W1EN5R2l8ecC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22penelope+rosemont%22&cd=1#v=onepage&q=typewriter&f=false) be included in the article? --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll have to get permission from the author. Airborne84 (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I just found an inconsistency. Why is there a section called "7.1 Interesting Fact"... and it is only one sentence long?! sorry, i forgot to log in 99.49.192.223 (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Interesting Fact"?

The "Interesting Fact" is false; it fails to mention that it is the longest word typed with one row of the QWERTY layout, other layouts could have longer words--Earboxer (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We're a wiki that anyone can edit, so for our intents and purposes it's not "false", but simply incomplete. That sentence also fails to mention that it's the longest English word. Off the top of my head, I can think of "Prozentwert" (percent value), which works for German. I'll change the sentence accordingly. — Sebastian 18:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No - it really is "false". It's not even true for English and QWERTY. We have an article on the "rupturewort" (a flowering plant of the "pink" family) - which is a word that you can type only on the top row - and it contains one more letter than "typewriter". I have corrected the article accordingly. Perhaps it would be better to say "the longest commonly used English word" - but I imagine a botanist would have cause to debate that! Rather than twist our phrasing to make this rather cool piece of trivia remain "true" - I think we should burst the bubble of this particular urban legend once and for all. SteveBaker (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

John Pratt

John Pratt is described here as "American", but the article on Christopher Sholes says he invented the pterotype "in England". Neither article has a link for its respective claim. It is possible, but less likely, that both are true, but we need a source for that. — Sebastian 18:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Pratt was born in South Carolina; he moved to England with his wife in 1864. (The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, III, New York: James T. White & Company, 1893, p. 315). Эlcobbola _talk 19:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! After I wrote this, I found a link to the original SciAm article in a related article, which said that he was "of Alabama". Presumably, the The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography is more reliable, so if you'd like to replace that with your information, I won't object. — Sebastian 20:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

His wife was from Alabama. Pratt practiced law there for a time. Scientific America isn't wrong, just incomplete. Эlcobbola _talk 20:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that's my kind of explanation! :-) We currently don't have an article on John Pratt (inventor); would you like to create one? — Sebastian 20:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he's notable enough for his own article (reliable sources only really discuss him in the passing context of inventing the machine that inspired the Sholes & Glidden). That's actually also the case for Carlos Glidden and Samuel W. Soule - no in-depth coverage; they're only given passive mention and aren't really notable as individuals, like Pratt. I actually think they should be redirected to something like List of early typewriter inventors; information on Pratt would fit well there, too. Эlcobbola _talk 20:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Now that I look at these two other articles, I have to agree that they shouldn't be articles in their own right. I like the ideda of the list, but I'm wondering if even that is necessary. All early typewriter inventors are already covered (with as much detail as in their respective articles) in other articles and the typewriter#Early innovations section. The links to their articles seem to be almost exclusively created by {{Typewriter}}; if we remove the links from that template then I see no reason to keep the articles. — Sebastian 21:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Other" Section

The vast majority of this section is quoted verbatim from The New Yorker article (referenced once in the section: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/04/09/070409crbo_books_acocella?currentPage=all). Also, this section, and the referenced article, both propagate an often-told, and often disproved, myth about Kerouac typing on a single scroll of paper. Kirkesque (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Typewriter conventions - prime marks

I tagged the added note about prime marks as it seems WP:OR as it stands.

I agree that the straight quotes that were used on a typewriter don't accurately replicate "proper" prime marks. Even Robin Williams, in The Mac is not a Typewriter, italicized the "straight quotes" in a typewriter font to make them "prime marks". Williams called them "ditto marks" as well as using the term "prime marks". Typographer Ilene Strizver also uses the term "prime marks" here.

I would disagree in part with the statement that straight quotes on a typewriter do not equal prime marks. How would a typewriter user create inch and foot marks (prime marks) for example?

Anyway, perhaps this can be resolved by replacing "prime marks" with "straight quotes" in the article. The issue then is that multiple reliable sources discuss prime marks in regard to this topic. If the term "prime marks" is stripped from the article, readers are no longer privy to this opinion by experts—except through an elaborate and nuanced discussion. My opinion is that it's better to use the terminology that multiple reliable sources use and use notes or Wikilinks to discuss subtle nuances. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: How would a typewriter user create inch and foot marks (prime marks) for example?: What kind of question is that? How would a typewriter user create quotation marks?

Anyway, replacing "prime marks" with "straight quotes" (or something to that effect) was exactly what I did before you reverted it, so I don't see much need for further discussion as you agreed to it. These are not subtle nuances, equating " with prime marks make no more sense than equating " with typographic quotes, hence it makes the whole sentence completely miss the point. We are not required to copy every single word some expert somewhere writes on the subject. Having said that, I note that out of the three sources mentioned at the end of the "prime mark" sentence, I have only access to one, and that one does not mention primes in any way, hence I am quite skeptical about your claims that experts call it like that.—Emil J. 12:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable for now. However, I've seen the words "prime marks" used in reference to this subject in about a half-dozen (or more) books on typography as well as articles by experts. In that sense, it's notable. I'll look sometime in the near future to see how it's best to fit this term in in a way that will be acceptable to everyone concerned. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Plurals and possessives hanging us up again

Somebody should fix this sentence in the "Television" section:

...a whole episode is dedicated to young John Boy and Baldwin sister's fathers typewriter...

How many sisters and how many fathers? (I'm not going to watch an episode of this show just to figure out what the sense of the sentence is supposed to be.) rowley (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

QWERTYUIOP

TypeWriter Is The Longest Word You Can Make Out of QWERTYUIOP. There Should Be A Section About That. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EpicNuker (talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

1. There is a section about that in the "In popular culture" section: See Typewriter#Other.
2. It's not even true! (See (1), above). The longest word found in common use is rupturewort and there is an even longer word: 'uropyoureter' - which is listed in some medical dictionaries but in such rare use that we should probably ignore it. It's a shame though - we all really wish it was "typewriter".

SteveBaker (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've done a lot of cleanup, and rearranged the sections for better historical and logical flow. This also revealed some inconsistencies now merged into the "End of an era" section, which need to be cleaned up. I have to leave now, so I hope somebody else will figure out what the full story is, and clarify matters. Reify-tech (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)