Talk:Fireworks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Laws governing consumer fireworks section 2 Don't Edit My Question Please! 3 Article name 4 considerations 5 Requested move 5.1 Discussion 6 Fireworks in Canada around Halloween? 7 this is awesome 8 Controversial Fireworks Pollution External Link Voting 9 fireworks 10 Cleanup tag for section regarding safety of consumer fireworks 11 firesrosk 12 Firework(s) 13 images 14 Bonfire night in Britain (section 5.1) 15 Someone recently launched firework from their rear end 16 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) 17 Grammar 18 Madeira 19 Coloured fireworks?

[edit] Laws governing consumer fireworks section

This entire section lacks even a single citation. I question the validity of most of it and would suggest its removal unless authority can be cited.

[edit] Don't Edit My Question Please!

Someone or thing deleted my old one, so I have 30 mins to get to bed, i have a huge project, lost my book now i need anything about fireworks, inventor..etc.etc. please link me another awseome website =]

Have you tried some of the links at the bottom of the article? Also new sections usually go at the bottom of the page. --WikiSlasher 05:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

There are now two separate articles, one at fireworks and one at firework. Clearly people are getting confused. Is it possible (sorry, I'm new to this) to merge the two and to have the one of the name aliased/redirected to the other? JennyRad 21:17, 4th November 2004 (GMT)

The article was at fireworks, then firework. I've undone the move back to fireworks because it is the usual Wikipedia naming convention to use the singular. violet/riga (t) 15:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] considerations

It is interesting to notice that fireworks aesthetical considerations are viewed by most people as rewarding enough to forget about the negative effects of CO2 emission and the resulting increase in Greenhouse gas.

I think it's quite an objective constatation true for most people, how many peole do you think think about greehouse effect when they watch it? Not many! Considering the importance of global warming and the importance of thinking about it for some eventual actions, I think the above comment should appear on the main page! Ok firework have probably a negligeable effect on global warming, but they send a disturbing message, linking fun and burning things, even exploding things! Isn't it paradoxal ? Why do we need to burn things to have fun ? How come fire works seem to be so atractive ?? For me, to see on was enough, and if I am looking after beautiful colors and shape, they are many more interesting possibilities!

I believe this is politically incorrect to criticise a topic, but it's reallity, let's face it : it spread CO2 and it sends the message that it's ok and fun to do it !! That's quite dangerous, because many believe it! And it's getting quite hot here!

My friend, you spread CO2 yerself. And a large number of other things as well. We are not going to addthis trivia into each and every article. And eating pigs is bad, too. And internet is killing rainforests. mikka (t) 02:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

• This article is about the subject of fireworks (analogous to the article about artillery, also a plural noun). Fireworks is almost always used in the plural, as either a noun or adjective. The singular is so unusual that it's confusing in most contexts; it looks like it might be referring to something else, and it only makes sense if referring to a single firework. In this article, I count 40-plus occurrences of fireworks and only three of firework.

• Support This is my request. —Michael Z. 2005-05-2 16:07 Z
• Support. (I think you're not suppose to vote for something you put up first) KTC 16:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. violet/riga (t) 16:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It make too much sense in the singular. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. One firework, two fireworks. Seems fine to me. Gdr 20:43, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
• Support. Mikkalai 17:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

This is now closed and there are two separate articles.

• Support I don't think I've ever said "firework" in my life.Robludwig 5 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)

Support I agree Ive never said 'Firework'--Eddy Dude 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

• I see no reason that this should be different to all other implementations of the singular/plural naming convention. If we wish to say that somebody was injured by an accident with these things we'd refer to it as "he was hit by a firework" or "a firework exploded in her hand", or you may wish to go for "never return to a lit firework". Even for ease of linking we should retain the non-plural name. violet/riga (t) 16:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)*You seem to be confusing the terms: "firework" is a device, "fireworks" is a show, both words being singular. (As a lesson of English from a non-englishman): there is even a singular word "works" than means "factory" or "internal mechanism". There should be two separate articles. My initial impression was that the article is mostly about "fireworks", "firework" part being small. Mikkalai 17:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The article is easily splittable, and I am doing it right now. Mikkalai

[edit] Fireworks in Canada around Halloween?

The article claims that fireworks are used to celebrate All Saints Day (Halloween) in Canada. I'm from Kitchener, Ontario, and I've NEVER heard of this. Perhaps this is regional?

To the best of my recollection, the only days fireworks are commonly used (at least, in this area) are Victoria Day and Canada Day. Winter is just too cold to stand outside and watch things go "bang".

Halloween is celebrated by the practice of "trick-or-treating" - children dress up in costume, and go door-to-door with the greating "trick-or-treat", and are given candy.

- Dave Suffling (e-mail dsufflin < at > uoguelph dot ca.)

In Québec, the biggest firework nights are for Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, many villages, including smaller ones, have their own firework shows, as this is one of the biggest events of the year. I think this should be added in the article. I know of an exception to the "no fireworks in winter" : Yellowknife, where summer means light and winter means night, I'll check this with my contact there, and to know when thay have the fireworks. Pro bug catcher 21:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Answer: YES, In British Columbia (the lower mainland anyway) fireworks have always been a part of halloween, it's the only time of the year they are legal (shops pop up everywhere) and Halloween night looks like a war zone with fireworks, bottle rockets, and firecrackers (which are illegal) going off all night. The weather is mild so kids are out trick or treating or doing the usual halloween vandalism (including fireworks).

The tradition, I believe, comes from the British/Scottish/Irish roots of BC (which was actually a very British province before World War II and the opening up of immigration) I know in Ireland they set off fireworks around halloween, and there is Guy Fawkes Day in Britain, (close to halloween).

-Steven V. Gibson, svgibson@sfu.ca 142.58.181.84 20:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] this is awesome

i liked the fact that this page is so informative, it is a real help, especially with research projects at school.

Thanks

[edit] Controversial Fireworks Pollution External Link Voting

Months ago I had posted a link that seemed like a good resource regarding fireworks pollution and it didn't seem to bother anyone but I guess recently it has annoyed people enough to have it deleted multiple times but by anonymous users. I put it back up a few times and also expanded the pollution info in the wiki article. The actual link in question is Fireworks - Cheap Thrills with Toxic Consequences

I'm thinking I probably won't put it back up if it is deleted again unless some actual existing Wikipedia contributers show support here for it. I would appreciate any input from some contributing editors.

• Support Since I posted it Trailbum 00:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The information in the link isn't a problem, I think the article's Pollution section could be expanded with some of the information, if there are reputable sources to cite. But I think the link is too POV and it could be presented in a more professional way. --Interiot 01:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The link is IMHO thoroughly POV and advocates a political/environmentalist agenda very strongly. Information from the site could (and should) be rewritten, referenced and included in the article. I do not believe any links “as is” to this specific site is in the interest of Wikipedia as an NPOV encyclopaedia although inclusion might be considered insofar as sufficient information regarding the political view of the site is clearly and properly displayed. Regards,Celcius 06:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm afraid... were that link a wikipedia article, I'd ask it to cite some sources. I'd go for things like these: [1] [2] -- Mike1024 (t/c) 00:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The assertions of the linked site are interesting, and worthy of proper research and reference. However, I agree that the linked site is not up to the standards of a reputable source. TimothyMcK 21:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As per Mike1024's suggestion. --Drdan 16:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is definitely POV and with political motivation. Some of the content should be included in the article but it really isn't suitable as a related link --Tmorton166 20:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Non-reputable source, lacking sources of its own. It also does not speak of the concentrations of the materials used, and so seems to be heavily biased. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 18:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fireworks

The section on firework pollution is definitely biased; unfortunately, this holds for many of the sources available to the public as well. The following documents should be cited:

- the wikipedia article on black powder that clearly states that the solid products of black powder combustion consist mainly of potassium carbonate and potassium sulfate. In fact, the products are basic and not acidic! At least the claim that fireworks contribute to acid rain should be backed up by references.

- the claim that barium is a highly obnoxious heavy metal is an example of another bias. Barium does not accumulate in the body to the extent that the truly obnoxious heavy metals do (e.g. lead, cadmium, thallium, mercury). Although it is definitely toxic, long-term effects are very minor or not observed, please see this:

http://www.rense.com/general21/tox.htm

I have now edited this section, however, could someone help with by adding the references above??? I do not at present know how to include them.

[edit] Cleanup tag for section regarding safety of consumer fireworks

I have added a cleanup tag to the section regarding safety of consumer fireworks. I think the section would benefit from some references, particularly in the locations where I added a citation-needed tag. Also, it seems that some sections might be construed as POV. I identified a sentence (indicated with a comment) that seemed confusing and possibly POV. I could not decide how to handle this by editing the section myself, but hopefully the regular editors of this article will be able to improve the section.--GregRM 16:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] firesrosk

google. Added an 'also' in the second para of 'History'. JamRoc 15:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Jamil

[edit] Firework(s)

There are now two separate articles about fireworks, one about firework devics and firework displays by the name of "Firework", and one about firework displays and firework devices by the name of "Fireworks". It appears as though they're not only overlapping, but are actually about the same thing. Both articles cover firework displays and explosive classes, for instance. I suggest an immediate merge. The current naming situation is very confusing and misleading as well, as those who try to find information on fireworks and assume they'll be redirected to the right place actually won't, they'll just get whichever article they happened to land at based on the spelling. Rōnin 21:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That you could separate the two into one about devices and displays suggests that they should have two different articles. In fact, I'd argue that they read that way and should remain as such. Renaming the titles would make sense though. Perhaps a fireworks (firework would also redirect here) disambiguation page, and one explictly as fireworks devices and one explictly as fireworks displays? 208.54.14.73 18:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that firework and fireworks display would be the best names. violet/riga (t) 07:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] images

It's a real shame that there are no FI class images. Have our intrepid photographers got anything handy? :) — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 04:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was wondering too - I came to this article to see if there was any featured pics but there isn't. Fireworks look really cool so we need a FP quality photo. The next person to include a picture of fireworks in the article that becomes a featured pic will get a photography barnstar from yours truly! --WikiSlasher 07:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, New Year celebrations are held on New Year's Eve around the world and they often have fireworks displays. So that could be a good time to take a FP-class photo and nominate it to be a featured picture ;) --WikiSlasher 02:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There are some good photos at commons:Firework. --WikiSlasher 02:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the pictures [3] in this article taken by yours truly is already an FP featured on the Portal:Society page. This picture has been in the article since May 2005. --Kvasir 18:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bonfire night in Britain (section 5.1)

This section contains misplaced material that is irrelevant to the subsection's heading. Also, although there is some information about Britain, it is also largely irrelevant to the sub-section (i.e., it is not about Bonfire Night.) In fact, there is no longer any information about Bonfire Night in this section, though there used to be in old versions. I propose to revert and tidy up this sub-section, but given the discussions that have happened before about changes to this entire entry, I would like to check that I am not likely to open up any "cans of worms" first. Many thanks.  DDS  ^talk 16:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove all non-British bits under that heading regardless - it doesn't belong there at all. -- the GREAT Gavini 19:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the British stuff you didn't delete also had nothing to do with Bonfire Night. It seemed to be about the Edinburgh Festival, and had been there in some form since 12th Sept, when 67.180.11.140 deleted everything about Bonfire Night and tried to claim that the Washington Monument was in Edinburgh. I've reverted to the way things were before he got his hands on it. Edbrims 10:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to it - I was busy doing other things that prevented me from following up on my previous message more quickly. Now, why does this topic seem to attract vandals?  DDS  ^talk 15:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone recently launched firework from their rear end

This fireworks stunt officially backfired. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/6132140.stm 86.140.139.252 01:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)

The article, like so many others, continues to mangle this and other federal agencies name and abbreviation, as well as their scopes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.179.254.199 (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Grammar

I'm not too sure about this edit. Is that right? "Brought of their enthusiasm"? --WikiSlasher 12:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it back. --WikiSlasher 00:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madeira

I think the Madeira fireworks at the New year festivities need to be mentioned. This year was considered by the Guiness Book the biggest firework in the world. When i have some time i will try to write something.--viriatus 22:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coloured fireworks?

Just watching a documentary which briefly touched on the job of a Firework creator. It was mentioned that back in the 16th-17th century fireworks were not coloured. I was interested to learn more about when and how fireworks gained their characteristic multi-coloured appearance we are used to today. Does anyone have any furhter information on what seems to me to be one of the most important advances in firework creation? Mmm commentaries 04:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)