Talk:Flammability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.
Flammability was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: August 10, 2006

This article used to be called Inflammability. The article and the talk page were moved to Flammability and then edited further.--Achim 18:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Anonymous edits to Flammability

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=Flammability --Achim (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Article

This is NOT a good article. It is a paragraph article about a broad topic. It requires expansion, citation, good photos, and better organization (not really applicable for a 1 paragraph article). Do not nominate articles as bad as this as Good Articles. It wastes the reviewers time and delays the evaluation of pages that people spent a lot time working on. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have no idea why anyone would consider this a good article.


Just another sign of the dumbing down of America. So we can no longer say "inflammable" because people get confused? Great! Let us cater to the ignorant; it will only serve to strengthen America!!

Wholeheartedly I concur. The article says nothing about what influences flammibilty, etc. It is incomplete and pratically useless. It needs to be finished.

[edit] Last quote on page

The last sentence says "...should use inflammable" shouldn't that say "flammable" ? The sentence doesn't make sense otherwise. --Royalflight 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I confirm that the quote is correct. It does make sense. If you are concerned for the safety of children and illiterates, use flammable. If not, use inflammable. --Quaestor 03:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Please give details about flammability range

[edit] Moving forward

I agree with everyone that this article needs attention. Those of us who work in the field of fire protection ordinarily refer to flammable items as those, which catch on fire easily, whereas "inflammable" would denote the opposite. However, it is not proper trade lingo. What really drives such definitions is regulations such as the local fire code or the NFPA standards they reference, and the international equivalents. I propose moving this to the term "Flammability" if possible (not sure because that term re-directs to "inflammability") and then re-writing to cite proper code references, so that the article does not contradict codes, which it does right now. Any objection, please tell me. --Achim 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Please read the article carefully. "Inflammable" never refers to the opposite of flammable in English. The "in-" prefix is not Latin. It just refers to something that can go up "in" flames. Reginmund 06:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Noted but it still doesn't do much good since the industry lingo and code lingo and testing lingo that actually deals with the subject matter, real products in the field and codes being applied does not recognise the old term. I see that someone helped with the move, so we can now work on fixing the article... The linguistic gymnastics are nifty, but what matters is application in the field, does it not? --Achim 15:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I redirected the page to inflammability. The liguistics are not "nifty"; they could not be more clear. The proper term is inflammability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore must reflect the proper English term. Any misuse of "flammable" or "flammability" can be discussed in the body of the article. 172.129.15.175 (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The sole standard of attribution in WP is verifiable sources. The word inflammable occurs exactly once in the entire series of NFPA codes. It is used in NFPA 312 Standard for Fire Protection of Vessels During Construction, Conversion, Repair, and Lay-Up, section A.4.4.1, "The terms flammable and inflammable have the same meaning." There are many other references which conclude the same, as a Google search confirms, ranging from writing guides (e.g., Write Right!: A Desktop Digest of Punctuation, Grammar, and Style By Jan Venolia) to scientific texts (e.g., Standard Handbook of Plant Engineering By Robert C. Rosaler, p. 4.171, "Flammable and inflammable are identical in meaning. Flammable is used in preference to inflammable.") Fireproeng (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
If you insist, I can find many sources that say that the proper term is inflammable. There is no such word as "flammable". An encyclopedia entry must be based on the proper grammatical term, not on a term that was coined to to a musinderstanding of the prefix "in". 172.129.15.175 (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Flammable from Merriam-Webster. KnightLago (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I insist. Allusions to references are not sufficient. Your statement that the term flammable does not exist in the face of the verified sources cited is ridiculous. Please do not revert this page again unless consensus is reached to do so, or a block will be requested. Fireproeng (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's so funny to find myself agreeing with Fireproeng :-) For a look at who is editing this page anonymously, please click here: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=Flammability The funniest comment on this talk page, to me, is calling the fire protection industry, and by that I mean people involved with test standards and building codes, products, consultants, construction and building maintenance children and illiterates. That's absolutely hilarious. For the author of that particular prose, let me ask you this: Have you ever worked on a task group for a nationally accredited standard? If you did, you would know that the outcome is a consensus document. That takes a lot of travel expenses borne by the TG members, coffee and sandwiches by the standards writing organisation. Consensus means that industry insiders agreed upon it and then, AFTER THAT, the accreditation body signed off on it and THEN it became LAW OF THE LAND by being included in codes. That is what it takes for a code to demand compliance with a standard. And what do you have to back up your stuff? Linguistic gymnastics? Just go with the flow dude, or see if you can get on a standard task group with UL or NFPA and see what reception you'll have when you call them all idiots for not going along with you and changing common industry terminology. By the way, you need a certain industry pedigree to get on such a group. But I thank you for your most entertaining prose. That made my night. --Achim (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Something just occurred to me: I must assume that our linguistics expert here has no experience in fire protection. If he did, he would be aware of other bastardisations of the English language in our trade. A perfect example is Fireproofing. You can apply the stuff but that does not mean that the treated item is henceforth immune to fire of sufficient duration and intensity. Some Meschuggener came up with the term God only knows how long ago, probably a salesman or marketing type with no technical understanding, and the term stuck. It's a stupid use of the word, because there is no such thing, when applied grammatically correctly. But the fact of the matter is that this is the industry term, in standards and codes and in the trade. That is the nature of language, particularly the English language, target that it always was of foreign influences with invaders in Britain, etc. The German term for the same thing is FAR more descriptive and accurate: Brandschutz Spritzputz, which translates to fire protection spray plaster. One must admit that "fireproofing" is easier and shorter, albeit linguistically challenged. You're not going to change it now because it's in all the consensus documents. That's the City Hall you're attempting to fight on here. It's futile. The main reason it is futile is because you're missing the point of the language: You say it and I understand it. When you now say "inflammability", you're literally talking gibberish. --Achim (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that anyone is disputing the consenus document that uses flammable. My concern is that the proper word is actually "inflammable", meanning that something is capable of being inflammed. To use "flammable" is to say that something is capable of being "flammed"; hardly grammatical. Just because some firemen's manuals use an incorrect form, we do not have to insert the incorrect form into an encyclopedia article. Firemen are not known for their extensive vocabularies and knowledge of English grammar, at least in my area. 172.129.15.175 (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:SOURCE:"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Fireproeng (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
And thanks for the edit about how fire protection industry insiders are "some less educated people". You crack me up, anonymous dude :-) --Achim (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, if anyone assumes that something is not inflammble when they see the word "inflammble", it does mean that they are less educated, at least about the prefix "in". I did not single out the fire protection industry; it would apply to anybody. The situation would be similar to not knowing the difference between "who" and "whom" or pronouncing "library" as "liberry". It is a sad state of affairs that so many Americans are so ignorant when it comes to English grammar. An encyclopedia, however, should not indulge this ignorance by titling an article with a word that was coined because people "were confused" by the proper word. 172.129.15.175 (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you just don't get it. You keep harping on your own points but you are not absorbing what is being said to you. Also, your own grammar is not that hot. Check your talk page for an example. Also, lousy grammar is not something the US have a monopoly on, especially these days. There's perfectly distasteful prose originating from the UK too. Ever hear of Cockney? I would suggest that you open your mind to what is being said to you and then perhaps check your manners as well. A) You're not getting it. B) Your grammar sucks too. Apart from that, you're beating a dead horse. In all English speaking countries whose national governments are signatory to ISO (which does not leave a lot of real estate), it's FLAMMABLE, not inflammable, regardless of how flawed that may be. Languages evolve. Maybe it's evolution backwards but there you have it. This is not even my native language. I like to think I have a fairly decent grasp of it though. I'd say pick another battle. This one is over. --Achim (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, you said that I have poor grammer? I do not appreciate the foul comments, saying that "my grammar sucks". This sort of language is inappropriate for any venue, especially an encyclopedia's talk page. I consider this a personal attack, one that is not necessary. If we disagree on the article's content, it can be resolved, but you only weaken your own credibility by resorting to personal attacks and raunchy language. 71.174.181.168 (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is hardly foul language. Also, is it not indicative that you will not identify yourself, remain anonymous, and can't actually respond to the subject matter at hand? By the way, grammar has AR at the end. You put grammer. So, maybe there is a more politically correct way to put it, but the message does not change. I relly don't care what you think about anyone's credibility. You will not even identify yourself - and then you throw baseless threats around. Disagreement over content also cannot be resolved with you because you continue to repeat the same tired old stuff without understanding responses headed your way from me or anyone else. So, I don't take your blocking threats seriously. You have no adequate grasp of the English language. You don't understand the subject matter. You know little or nothing about fire protection. You can't back up what you are saying. You remain anonymous. Who is the one lacking in credibility? Your grasp for what is and what is not acceptable on a talk page is also lacking. We have definitions here on very graphic subject matter and terms. We had a banner on talk pages right at the top that encourages people to donate to Wikipedia by saying "Give us your fu§$ing money!" I did not invent that one by the way - I was against that. But to say something sucks (like your grammar skills), is hardly over the line. OK, so I'll say that it's grade school level English. Does that make you feel better? I really don't particularly care. Once again: I suggest you pick better battles and be better prepared and to accept input of other editors too. You're not exactly receiving any support here. --Achim (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick look at a dictionary clears this one up - "inflammable" is the term for general use "flammabel" is preferred in technical usage. Using "flammable" makes sense for international usage, as there are ahell of alot of scientists and engineers who use English as a lingua franca but might get confused by "inflammable", thinking it means "non-flammable." If the "fire protection community" uses "flammable" thats fine, as it is the usual technical term. "Inflammable" should never mean "non-flammable" - that is a mistake, and if it is indeed a very common one, then all that means is that its a very common mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.66.108.71 (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Most flammable

What is the most flammable gas? What is the most flammable liquid? Pikazilla (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ask this fellow: http://www.doctorfire.com/ --Achim (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)