Contents

Talk:Firework

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.129.176 (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and many of these nasty people eat innocent pigs and cows! mikka (t) 02:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shut up,natural disasters such as volcanoes cause more pollution.Dudtz 1/10/06 9:08 PM EST

I think Potassium is also used for this color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.204.3 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sources?~Sushi 08:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section about US law removed. Reproduced below for posterity, but really ought to be in an article about US law, or else one section of several discussing Explosives law in varying countries, to avoid being yankeecentric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.152.156 (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==Fireworks classifications in the United States==

The United States government has classified fireworks and similar devices according to their potential hazards.

===Old explosives classes===
Fireworks and other explosives were originally divided into three classes.

• Class A products were usually high explosives such as dynamite.
• Class B included display fireworks, usually used at large events. They are generally more powerful than consumer fireworks, and usually require a license to use.
• Class C fireworks are "common fireworks", or consumer fireworks. This includes sparklers, fountains, and other fireworks available at stands. These are permitted for private use by federal law.

===New explosives classes===
The U.S. government now uses the United Nations explosives classification system. Two are used for fireworks.

• Code 1.3G replaces the old Class B. These are professional display fireworks, and require a license.
• Code 1.4G includes consumer fireworks, available for purchase under federal law. It is the equivalent of Class C.
• Code 1.4S includes very small devices. These are usually referred to as "novelties" instead of "fireworks". These include "party poppers" and noisemakers, and can be used indoors safely. Most types of fuse also fall into this category.

Speaking as an Australian, i can say that this information does add to the article, and support whoever put it back in. THE KING 15:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded an image of a detonating firework. I think it's a pretty nifty picture, personally, but will leave it to more talented editors for consideration of whether or not to add it into the article. --Thisisbossi 21:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the descriptions of the different types of fireworks, but it would be nice to have some pictures to illustrate what the different types look like, or what the effect is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.248.139 (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see your point and it's a good point, but that would make the fireworks article pretty long, n'est-ce pas? But you're right... most people don't use the term 'firework', it's more common as 'fireworks'. Personally, I think a merge is pretty good...~Sushi 05:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this sourced? Does it really belong in this article? -- Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}  03:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just "undid" the edit that added that section. I waited six months for a response here, but nobody objected so I removed the section. Feel free to revert me if you think the section should stay. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other good websites for the history of fireworks, inventor etc. etc. Link back please =] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.19.69 (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this will be useful. http://japan-fireworks.com/eindex.html Oda Mari 05:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I originally posted the following on talk:fireworks, but I thought that it would be worth posting here as well:

There seems to be some disagreement on whether links to fireworksland dot com and http://pyrouniverse.com 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 22:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

In the Dutch version of this page it is stated that firework was probably invented by the Bengali's, and that 'Bengali firework', the fountain type, refers to Bangladesh. Is this correct? Wiki-uk (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance it looks like this article and Fireworks 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 either Firework devices or Firework (device). (Also I am going to propose that Fireworks be renamed Fireworks display.) Thoughts? Nanobri (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this, this article actually says nothing about the invention of fireworks. Could someone add something on this? Lil.chocoholic.62 (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fireworks which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]