Talk:Fireworks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Casino du Lac-Leamy Sound of Light

Someone want to add it to the fireworks competitions? http://www.feux.qc.ca/feux_english/index.htm

[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.

-- I removed the statement that "However, the use of consumer fireworks purchased out of state is legal." after doing further research and determining that "all fireworks are illegal in Massachusetts without a license" (http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/2006_06_01_archive.html)

[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)YESSS great

[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)

The carbon that is used in fireworks is coming from wood. So fireworks is not adding CO2 to the atmosphere, only recycling the carbon. Fyrverkarn 15:42, 7 July 2007 (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.

Check Heavy metals (see Heavy Metals in Wikipedia). What are the problems? Anyone suspecting Fireworkers all over the world to use toxic or radioactive material in their fireworks? The truth is that all industry chemicals sometimes include traces of Cadmium, Quicksilver and so on. This has the effect that there always is some pollution, just as use of chemicals in farming will add cadmium to the food chain. Fyrverkarn 20:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[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)

A) Yes, merge the articles. B) Come on, this is an encyclopedia. Keep "Fireworks." This is the terminology that most people use. That we have two articles is utterly baseless. It is sheer hairsplitting to justify the two articles. Dogru144 21:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging would be good. Common terminology is "fireworks", and people use the term to refer to both the devices and the displays. Perhaps separate articles could be further discussed, but a merge is definitely in order. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 15:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge has been completed--BirgitteSB 15:16, 12 April 2008 (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)

Looks cool, but I meant as in Wikipedia:Featured pictures, in Category:Wikipedia featured pictures with the little star in the corner and all. --WikiSlasher 12:30, 17 September 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)

[edit] Some suggestions

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 meters, use 100 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100 meters.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- allege
- apparently
- might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).^[?]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), favourite (B) (American: favorite), meter (A) (British: metre), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), signaling (A) (British: signalling), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Rooot 18:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of Moerou toukon and IP range 59.94.96.0–59.94.106.0

Moerou toukon (block log) and IP range 59.94.96.0–59.94.106.0 are socks of an Indian nationalist editor with a history of POV-pushing,[4][5][6] citing unreliable sources,[7] and misrepresenting his sources.[8][9]
Moerou toukon has since been permanently blocked and that editor placed on revert parole by the Arbitration Committee for edit-warring and abuse of sockpuppets.

His attribution to ancient India relies heavily on a single chapter of Buchanan (2006) by Asitesh Bhattacharya and his sock edits give Bhattacharya undue weight.
Bhattacharya himself acknowledges "the prevailing view in the relevant academic community": "The respected work of scholars like Joseph Needham and general surveys such as that in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, credit Chinese alchemists with discovering in the ninth century..." (Buchanan 2006:42). JFD 20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

http://japan-fireworks.com/eindex.html I hope this helps for expansion.Oda Mari 05:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montreal's competition

Montreal's competition is touted to be the premier firework competition. But this page does not have it listed in the competitions section.

Indeed. I did some reasearch, and although i couldn't verify factually that Montreal's festival is the largest and most important (there are similar claims made by other events), it is undoubtably one of the world's most important. I can't understand why there isn't even a mention in the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'International_des_Feux_Loto-Qu%C3%A9bec

I just edited the article and included the Montreal festival. Although my knowledge of the event is minimal and my research was done rather hastily, i felt it was absurd that Montreal's competition not be included. Feel free to improve the short mention I included.

Someone seems intent on indicating that the Montreal festival is indisputably the world's best. I am from Montreal myself, but from a neutral point of view, i have to say that although there is considerable reason to believe this is so, it's not universally accepted. For this reason i'm keeping the prestige mention along the lines of "regarded by some as". Cataclaw 16:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto, Ontario Place Fireworks

Also, what about the Benson and Hedges Symphony of Fire that takes place in Toronto at Ontario Place. That should have a mention in the competitions as well. This section needs some updating.

"Competition" is a relative term. While it's true that there are typically 3 countries listed as competing (along with the finale night), and there are indeed often products from those specific countries used in the shows, now that it is the "Festival of Fire" all the "teams" are the same fireworks company (Fiat Lux) doing the shows. Symphony of Fire WAS a competition, but ever since B&H pulled out, it's just a 4 day show... DJSparky (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prohibitted in Omaha?

I was wondering if there was any reference for the sentence: "In Nebraska the sale and use of all consumer fireworks are prohibited in Omaha, while in Lincoln there is a two day selling period and in other parts of the state all of the permitted types can be sold and used by residents." When I was in the Air Force, I was stationed in Omaha. While they had restrictions on bottle rockets, most all other fire works were permitted. In fact, every year around Independence Day, my squadron had a firework sale in Omaha to raise money. Since I participated in selling fireworks at a stand in Omaha, I would assume that this sentence is not true, unless it has changed in the past 2 years since I left. -205.223.124.100 13:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fireworks are prohibited in Omaha, Offutt AFB is actually in the suburb of Bellevue, NE where fireworks are fine. 131.7.251.200 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] consensus requested: inclusion of links to Fireworksland.com and Pyro Universe

There seems to be some disagreement on whether links to com Fireworksland.com and Pyro Universe should be included in fireworks-related article. These two links were included for some time, but were later removed as "spam." While the sites do sell products, they are not inherently commercial in nature. They do, however, provide large amounts of detailed information on fireworks.

Therefore, I'd like to gain a consensus on whether these links should be included. Thanks.

Personally, I think that they should be included, but that's just me. --Ixfd64 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Though it's debatable as to whether the sites are "primarily" intended to sell products, both have ads and sell stuff. Wikipedia is not a link directory, and the external links section on Fireworks related articles were getting out of hand. Also refer to this discussion regarding the inclusion of these links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's now a moot point, as the site has been blacklisted; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Fireworks_links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order?

It is not understood what order the subcategories in 4 (Major events) are in. It would be better to not have it ordered arbitrarily. I recommend that it be ordered by importance or alphabetically by country. But of course importance would be controversial... What would be the order and which would be first? New Years Eve? Independence Day? Guy Fawkes Day? Diwali? What are your thoughts? Omjeremy 22:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Competitions section

I noticed that the Competitions section has a tag suggesting that it be split into a new article. Personally, I don't think a separate "Fireworks competitions" article is warranted. Anyone agree/disagree with the proposed split? Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 21:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I think it's just a waste of space (also it's poorly formatted), so I've split it into a new article, Fireworks competitions. Any input/expansion on that page is welcome. Perhaps a single example in this article would be appropriate? I'll leave it up to others as I'm not very familiar with the subject matter. --Pumpmeup 04:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fireworks in America

This paragraph implies some ownership of fireworks by America. Fireworks are part of many other cultures, and I didn't think wikipedia had a nationality. So what's the deal? 212.2.182.207 15:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The article needs to be globalized in a few places. I think that section is one of them. I've tagged it with a {{globalize/USA}} tag. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 18:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Globalize Fireworks in America section

I have placed a globalization tag on the Fireworks in America section because concern has been raised that it implies ownership of fireworks by the United States. Perhaps the best way to go about this would be to get more information on fireworks in other countries and make it a hierarchical thing like the Laws and politics section, with subsections for each known country. Responses? Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 18:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it could all be done in the History section in chronological order, for example starting with China and following the spread around the world? 78.16.99.207 12:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, that's not a bad idea. I don't have much knowledge of the history of fireworks (other than the fact that they originated in China), but perhaps another editor with expertise in the field will take up the project. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 18:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Fireworks display

At first glance it looks like this article and Firework are about the same thing. I realize now that they aren't but I think the naming is confusing. I propose this article be renamed Fireworks display (or something similar). (Also I am going to propose that Firework be renamed either Firework devices or Firework (device).) Thoughts? Nanobri (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that Firework should stay as it is and Fireworks should change to Firework display. JMiall ₰ 11:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hey there

i am a bit biased but i think we need to add something about australia.211.30.106.244 (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a photo of fireworks over the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House already. --WikiSlasher (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)