Combustibility and flammability was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Combustibility page were merged into Combustibility and flammability. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (21 August 2017) |
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)
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)
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.
It has outright errors all through it, and nowhere does it actually talk about flammability. As in, compared to combustability, or what does it actually mean to say a substance is "flammable" (it's a lot more involved than 'does it burn'). 69.145.252.174 ( talk) 13:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)flamable means burning.
Perhaps before lecturing, you should try to figure out what WP and this page are about. This isn't a place to debate what SHOULD be the term which is used. The language HAS evolved whether you think it should have or not. It is an encyclopedic fact. I suggest you get over it today. I mean, "to-day". It is vulgar to not put a hyphen in the word "to-day". That was the rule in 1900 and I'll be DAMNED if we every move to a different standard for that word. In fact, you should flog yourself every time you leave out the hyphen in "to-day". Then move on to chastising people who use the word "Indiana" in a joke about Star Trek characters. Njsustain ( talk) 14:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The above mass of off-topic argument notwithstanding, I'm of the opinion that the word used in the article should be "inflammable", which is the older and more technically correct term, and the one usually used in general contexts. The primary use of "flammable" is on warning labels, so as to prevent possible misinterpretation of the word. It is certainly not the 'technical' term - at least, not in the scientific community. It appears to be the preferred industry term, at least in the US, in the fire protection industry, but we shouldn't give industry terms precedence over general and scientific usage. 80.194.237.79 ( talk) 01:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
I was really hoping to learn more about flammbility from this article. Are there ratings to flammability? Is there a scale? How is it tested and applied? Are there different terms for substances/items that will only burn when a flame is applied, contrasted with substances/items that will sustain a flame? If anyone can answer these questions, please edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.188.29 ( talk) 20:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll second that. Isn't there a metric for flammability, used to compare flammable substances? Please delete this comment when addressed. Chrishibbard7 ( talk) 17:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
From the looks of it, Combustibility and Flammability are "a measure of how easily a substance will burn, through fire or combustion." What if they both were merged into the same article? MrBell ( talk) 23:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually i do not know much about that but it can be a step leading towards keeping people be able to search through topics quickly and easily which seem to be relative. Though they are not actually the same like loudness and pitch too but now that is what Wikipedia is meant for enlightening people.
And actually the difference between the two topics must be represented on the same page which must be given a different name or must be redirected to from the two articles Mr. Bell and everyone else taking part in this discussion is no doubt right to some extent. But at least I feel that these must be merged together so that people make full use of Wikipedia and all these points should be written on the page. (unsigned)
Things that are combustible: they burn if there is a source of ignition present and stop burning if the ignition source is removed. Things that are flammable: they burn if there is a source of ignition present, then continue to burn when the ignition source is removed by creating (distilling) more flammable gases from the material. This is known as self-sustaining combustion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.84.128 ( talk) 17:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
A Section Should be added clarifying Flammable vs. Combustible — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeWi ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
In addition to the definition of "will smoulder or flame when heated" vs. "will flame when heated" mentioned in the previous merge discussion, and the solid/liquid/gas distinction, there are also the definitions based on flashpoint in the U.S. and Canada ( [1], [2] and have changed over time - [3]). These vary, but for example "combustible" might refer to any liquid with a flashpoint above 100°F, and "flammable" to any liquid with a flashpoint between 20°F and 100°F.
I think it would be easier to explain the differences between the various definitions and measurement techniques in a single article, called something like Combustibility and flammability. In several areas there is significant overlap, in addition to the fact that the distinction between the two is in some cases merely a matter of degree. In the cases where there is a qualitative difference, we might as well explain the distinction once rather than twice. -- Beland ( talk) 19:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The prefix "in" originally meant to be, in, as in inflammable is the same as flammable. So why, now does insane apparently mean not sane, when really, technically insane should mean the same as sane. This country is backwards. We need to redefine not being sane as unsane. Governmentconspiracy101 ( talk) 08:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 10 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JeffreySalisbury ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by UCIHGrad18 ( talk) 20:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Combustibility and flammability was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Combustibility page were merged into Combustibility and flammability. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (21 August 2017) |
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)
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)
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.
It has outright errors all through it, and nowhere does it actually talk about flammability. As in, compared to combustability, or what does it actually mean to say a substance is "flammable" (it's a lot more involved than 'does it burn'). 69.145.252.174 ( talk) 13:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)flamable means burning.
Perhaps before lecturing, you should try to figure out what WP and this page are about. This isn't a place to debate what SHOULD be the term which is used. The language HAS evolved whether you think it should have or not. It is an encyclopedic fact. I suggest you get over it today. I mean, "to-day". It is vulgar to not put a hyphen in the word "to-day". That was the rule in 1900 and I'll be DAMNED if we every move to a different standard for that word. In fact, you should flog yourself every time you leave out the hyphen in "to-day". Then move on to chastising people who use the word "Indiana" in a joke about Star Trek characters. Njsustain ( talk) 14:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The above mass of off-topic argument notwithstanding, I'm of the opinion that the word used in the article should be "inflammable", which is the older and more technically correct term, and the one usually used in general contexts. The primary use of "flammable" is on warning labels, so as to prevent possible misinterpretation of the word. It is certainly not the 'technical' term - at least, not in the scientific community. It appears to be the preferred industry term, at least in the US, in the fire protection industry, but we shouldn't give industry terms precedence over general and scientific usage. 80.194.237.79 ( talk) 01:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
I was really hoping to learn more about flammbility from this article. Are there ratings to flammability? Is there a scale? How is it tested and applied? Are there different terms for substances/items that will only burn when a flame is applied, contrasted with substances/items that will sustain a flame? If anyone can answer these questions, please edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.188.29 ( talk) 20:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll second that. Isn't there a metric for flammability, used to compare flammable substances? Please delete this comment when addressed. Chrishibbard7 ( talk) 17:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
From the looks of it, Combustibility and Flammability are "a measure of how easily a substance will burn, through fire or combustion." What if they both were merged into the same article? MrBell ( talk) 23:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually i do not know much about that but it can be a step leading towards keeping people be able to search through topics quickly and easily which seem to be relative. Though they are not actually the same like loudness and pitch too but now that is what Wikipedia is meant for enlightening people.
And actually the difference between the two topics must be represented on the same page which must be given a different name or must be redirected to from the two articles Mr. Bell and everyone else taking part in this discussion is no doubt right to some extent. But at least I feel that these must be merged together so that people make full use of Wikipedia and all these points should be written on the page. (unsigned)
Things that are combustible: they burn if there is a source of ignition present and stop burning if the ignition source is removed. Things that are flammable: they burn if there is a source of ignition present, then continue to burn when the ignition source is removed by creating (distilling) more flammable gases from the material. This is known as self-sustaining combustion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.84.128 ( talk) 17:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
A Section Should be added clarifying Flammable vs. Combustible — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeWi ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
In addition to the definition of "will smoulder or flame when heated" vs. "will flame when heated" mentioned in the previous merge discussion, and the solid/liquid/gas distinction, there are also the definitions based on flashpoint in the U.S. and Canada ( [1], [2] and have changed over time - [3]). These vary, but for example "combustible" might refer to any liquid with a flashpoint above 100°F, and "flammable" to any liquid with a flashpoint between 20°F and 100°F.
I think it would be easier to explain the differences between the various definitions and measurement techniques in a single article, called something like Combustibility and flammability. In several areas there is significant overlap, in addition to the fact that the distinction between the two is in some cases merely a matter of degree. In the cases where there is a qualitative difference, we might as well explain the distinction once rather than twice. -- Beland ( talk) 19:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The prefix "in" originally meant to be, in, as in inflammable is the same as flammable. So why, now does insane apparently mean not sane, when really, technically insane should mean the same as sane. This country is backwards. We need to redefine not being sane as unsane. Governmentconspiracy101 ( talk) 08:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 10 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JeffreySalisbury ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by UCIHGrad18 ( talk) 20:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)