Talk:Spark (fire)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spark (fire) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months ![]() |
![]() | Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move (July 2011)
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page not moved, although User:Dmcq's proposals deserve a closer look. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Spark (fire) → Spark (particle) – The current disambiguation term used for this article is misleading and imprecise. It's misleading in that it may imply to readers that all the kinds of sparks which are discussed in this article are in some way all undergoing combustion, which they are not, as sparks produced by a grinder or the Bessmer process are in fact just hot incandescent particles. It's imprecise in that the sparks discussed in this article are not the only sparks associated with fire, as the sparks discussed in Electric spark are also commonly used for starting fires. This move was discussed earlier this year, but the discussion died out as no perfect disambiguation term could be found. But I say we should not let the perfect be an enemy of the good, and as I see it "Spark (particle)" goes a long way towards more accurately describing the subject of this article, as all the sparks discussed in this article are small incandescent particles.TheFreeloader (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The matter has been discussed extensively above and I am not seeing any new input in this proposal. The current title of Spark (fire) is fine. Warden (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's not a valid reason to oppose something. You need a valid argument beyond "this discussion has sort of happened before". I'd say you should just repeat your old arguments, but you kept changing them around every time your rationale was proved incorrect.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- We discussed why it should be called this and not particle before. No need having to copy and paste discussions and have the same argument all over again. Dream Focus 07:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support -- Absolutely. The current title is misleading and incorrect, something we should try to avoid especially strongly with science articles.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support The current title can easily be confused with Ember as that's the only type of particle that comes from a fire. However, this article is not about embers or particles just from fires, but particles from metalworking as well and other activities. Thus, Spark (particle) is a more understandable and accurate term for this article. SilverserenC 05:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose People who see "Spark (particle)" will think it's about some other concept they never heard of instead of what causes fires. Normal people don't think of sparks as a particle. Forget scientific accuracy, the principle of least astonishment applies. If you ask me, this should move to "Spark" as I'd say it's the primary topic. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah but see, this wouldn't necessarily be the most obvious choice of spark over Electric spark. Right now, this title doesn't really distinguish between the two; hell, both of them often cause fires. The proposed title isn't perfect, but at least it's accurate and does the job of what a disambiguation term is supposed to.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- I just saw above that this was rejected as primary topic. That's fine with me. But I'm not changing my vote on this one. Non-scientists don't think of sparks as particles, and they will probably think that this "spark" is some recent discovery in quantum physics or something. (Those sub-atomic particles do have some pretty strange names, quite literally) Something like spark (ember) might work, but spark (particle) is right out. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah but see, this wouldn't necessarily be the most obvious choice of spark over Electric spark. Right now, this title doesn't really distinguish between the two; hell, both of them often cause fires. The proposed title isn't perfect, but at least it's accurate and does the job of what a disambiguation term is supposed to.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose For reasons we discussed extensively months ago. See above discussion. Dream Focus 07:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Then reiterate them please. SilverserenC 07:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why? Just scroll up and read it in the two discussions of it already. The same people who didn't get their way, are now trying to start up the same exact argument. Dream Focus 07:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) And once again, a lot has changed since that last discussion. First of all, the page Electric spark has now been created, changing a lot of the arguments above. Second of all, like Colonel Warden, your reasoning was consistently incorrect and inaccurate, changing every time you were proved wrong. You're more than welcome to oppose this move, but you have to give an actual reason why the current name is better than the proposed one, not just say "this has happened before".--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing has changed. Apparently you believe anyone that disagrees with you has their "reasoning was consistently incorrect and inaccurate." There is no convincing you otherwise, as the long previous discussions have already proven. There is no possible reason to have the same exact argument yet again, since the same people are involved, and the outcome will be the same. Dream Focus 07:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the situation has totally changed with the creation of electric spark. That being said, I'm not sure if the proposed move is the best possible solution, so we can continue the discussion after it is over.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing has changed. Apparently you believe anyone that disagrees with you has their "reasoning was consistently incorrect and inaccurate." There is no convincing you otherwise, as the long previous discussions have already proven. There is no possible reason to have the same exact argument yet again, since the same people are involved, and the outcome will be the same. Dream Focus 07:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose yet again. A google of spark particle clearly shows that the spark particle engine in computer simulation is more popular. Plus it gives entirely the wrong impression that there might be a spark as well as electrons and quarks etc. Why do you persist with this proposal when there have been a few others which probably are more acceptable like spark (hot particle), spark (combustion), spark (ember), spark (incandescent), or spark (thermal) and probably a few more besides if you'd lose the narrow focus? Dmcq (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- I personally wouldn't oppose any of those, and we should certainly move on to a discussion of those now that circumstances have changed after this one ends. But I personally am supporting this move, not because it is to the best option, but because it is at least better than the one we currently have in that it does what it's supposed to do as a disambiguator. But I do agree that those other ones will be discussed, and I'll probably end up proposing it if you or someone else doesn't.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Different ideas
[edit]As proposed by the closing administrator above, I'd like to ask for input on what a better name would be. I personally would be in favor of (combustion); it is accurate, relates to what people think of with sparks and, most importantly, accurately describes the topic while still differentiating it from electric spark and other types of sparks. But I'm open to any other opinions, obviously.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to be bringing up the same argument every few months, and having a long drawn out debate. Let it go already. You haven't convinced most people, and you aren't going to. Dream Focus 03:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have anything actually on topic to say?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not that hasn't already been said several times already. WP:DEADHORSE The majority of people have already stated their opinion that this is the best name. Dream Focus 16:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have anything actually on topic to say?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd go with incandescent or thermal, I think combustion was the least good of the options. Combustion implies it will be burnt up. Dmcq (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Are electric sparks also incandescent, though?--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Then how about my original thing of hot particle? Dmcq (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I personally would prefer thermal over that, it's a bit less wordy. But only if thermal is fully accurate, of course.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)'
- I don't think thermal is that good an option. It doesn't quite get to the heart of what a spark is, and I would dare say electric sparks have a thermal element to them too. I am not opposed to trying hot particle, although I think it's quite clear that WP:PRECISION says that we should only be as precise with our disambiguation terms as to distinguish it from other actual articles, not as to distinguish it from everything anyone could ever imagine a term to mean. I mean Queen (band) might also refer to some sort of wristband. But if calling it hot particle is what it takes to get this article away from the current title, which nobody seems to have any good arguments for keeping it at, then I am for it.TheFreeloader (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The issue here is how a move discussion works though. It's not like an AfD, where !votes are weighted based on their actual content. Yes, there haven't been any good arguments for the current title. But the opinion of someone !voting "I like this title more" or "this has already had a move discussion with no consensus" is in the end weighed the same as someone who actually makes an argument based on accuracy and fact.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think thermal is that good an option. It doesn't quite get to the heart of what a spark is, and I would dare say electric sparks have a thermal element to them too. I am not opposed to trying hot particle, although I think it's quite clear that WP:PRECISION says that we should only be as precise with our disambiguation terms as to distinguish it from other actual articles, not as to distinguish it from everything anyone could ever imagine a term to mean. I mean Queen (band) might also refer to some sort of wristband. But if calling it hot particle is what it takes to get this article away from the current title, which nobody seems to have any good arguments for keeping it at, then I am for it.TheFreeloader (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I personally would prefer thermal over that, it's a bit less wordy. But only if thermal is fully accurate, of course.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)'
- Then how about my original thing of hot particle? Dmcq (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Are electric sparks also incandescent, though?--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- WP:PRECISE states "...over-precision should be avoided. ... Remember that concise titles are preferred." WP:TITLECHANGES states, "If ... no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. ... Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia."
- I am that first major contributor, having expanded the article from the stub which was taken to AFD and having written the majority of the current content. The title that the article had then seems adequately precise and concise. We have debated the matter sufficiently to show that there is no consensus for a change and so further debate would be unproductive.
- Warden (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- No. The circumstances have changed, there is still ongoing discussion and progress, and many issues need to be addressed. We have stayed at this default title so far because yes, you are right that as the first major contributor the title you put it as stays until there is a consensus otherwise. But that does not make your arguments automatically stronger than others (that would be a case of WP:OWN. There are numerous accuracy issues with this title that still need to be addressed, and stopping a discussion without making any comment on its actual content is what is unproductive.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Back to the actual discussion: would hot particle definitely only apply to this article and not electric spark? The main issue with the article title now is that is that it does not properly distinguish this article from the other page, which is the purpose of a disambiguation, and that it doesn't accurately apply to what this article covers. Hot particle definitely fixes the second problem, but does it fix the first?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I would say hot particle does quite a good job distinguishing the subject of this article from that of electric spark, but I don't think does a better job then particle alone. After all an electric spark is momentarily turning the matter it is discharging through into plasma, and must therefore be said to be quite hot too. But as I have said before, I don't think we should let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and whatever tiny bits of ambiguity might be found in this proposed name, it is still nothing compared to the inaccuracy in the current name.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
For this issue not die again for who-knows-how-long, what do people say about trying another RM, this time to Spark (hot particle)?TheFreeloader (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose mainly because that sounds incredibly stupid, but also because electric sparks are also hot particles. Dream Focus 22:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- While it might be possible to see an electric spark as being such, it certainly isn't how I would first describe an electric spark. Rather I would describe it as nonconductive material being temporarily ionized by an electric discharge. While on the other hand a hot incandescent particle is often the way reliable sources choose to first describe the kind of spark being discussed in this article, as you may see here:[1][2][3]. Also, I would like to here some reasons why you think (fire) is a better disambiguation term than (hot particle) for this subject.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Just scroll up to the various places I already explained it already. I gave several different valid reasons at various times. No consensus to change it, no reason for the same people to keep trying to have the same conversation time and again when that isn't going to change. Dream Focus 03:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- While it might be possible to see an electric spark as being such, it certainly isn't how I would first describe an electric spark. Rather I would describe it as nonconductive material being temporarily ionized by an electric discharge. While on the other hand a hot incandescent particle is often the way reliable sources choose to first describe the kind of spark being discussed in this article, as you may see here:[1][2][3]. Also, I would like to here some reasons why you think (fire) is a better disambiguation term than (hot particle) for this subject.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose mainly because that sounds incredibly stupid, but also because electric sparks are also hot particles. Dream Focus 22:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I would support a name change to Spark (hot particle), as that properly expands the title to include sparks made beyond the mere involvement of fire. And it also has no relation to electric sparks, as that is an ionic discharge, not a particle. SilverserenC 05:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have no great problems with fire but hot particle seems to describe it better. So a support from me. Dmcq (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Requested move (August 2011)
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Spark (fire) → Spark (hot particle) – We seem to have found a name which most people can approve of. I'll copy paste my old rationale (with slight edits), as it still basically applies here. The current disambiguation term used for this article is misleading and imprecise. It's misleading in that it may imply to readers that all the kinds of sparks which are discussed in this article are in some way all undergoing combustion, which they are not, as sparks produced by a grinder or the Bessmer process are in fact just hot incandescent particles. It's imprecise in that the sparks discussed in this article are not the only sparks associated with fire, as the sparks discussed in Electric spark are also commonly used for starting fires. This move was discussed earlier this year, but the discussion died out as no perfect disambiguation term could be found. But I say we should not let the perfect be an enemy of the good, and as I see it "Spark (hot particle)" goes a long way towards more accurately describing the subject of this article, as all the sparks discussed in this article are small incandescent particles. TheFreeloader (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose These repeated attempts to rename the article seem increasingly vexatious. This latest proposal is inferior to the current title because hot particle is not commonly used to describe sparks of this sort, as the relevant article of that title demonstrates. Warden (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
SupportComment It looks like a lot of fire safety literature refers to sparks and hot particles as slightly different things where hot particles can be less hot but often are bigger. I don't think we need worry about that distinction for this article. I think it is better than just saying fire though. By the way I'd have thought some of the sparks in the symbolism section were based more of the lightning spark type. Dmcq (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I see now though that hot particle can mean radioactive dust or fragments. The stuff from fire safety stands but there is a second use against so I've changed to a neutral comment. Dmcq (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support Hot particle seems to be a more descriptive term for the varied subjects expressed in this article. And, in contradiction to the comment made by Colonel Warden, hot particle is used in a number of works in conjunction with or as another word for sparks. For example, in flint and steel, in welding, and in flammable material. It's quite clear that hot particle is a more proper term that can combine all of the elements in this article (pyrotechnics, flint and steel, welding, and spark arrestors), and it does so much better than the simple term "fire", which is very limited and doesn't really apply in a number of the cases described herein. SilverserenC 19:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support -- It's wordier than I'd like, but at least it both accurately encompasses what the article covers while successfully differing it from other uses of the word "spark", something the current title does not do.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Have those wishing to change this actually read the article? Its about sparks related to fire. Spark (fire) is a common name easily understandable. Spark (hot particle) is not. Are we discussing electrons here? [4] Electric sparks would be included in Spark (hot particle) wouldn't they? We need to distinguish each article from the other, as we have now. Spark (fire) and electric spark Dream Focus 02:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Electric sparks aren't particles, they are an ionic discharge between two surfaces. And, as the sources that I gave above show, sparks are often described as being hot particles. SilverserenC 07:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- The sources that you and Dmcq have provided all discuss sparks in the context of fire. Those sources are thus good evidence for the current title, not for a change.
- Oppose Spark (fire) is easier to understand than Spark (hot particle). Suraj T 05:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Except that fire only has to do with a portion of the content in this article. Sparks can create fires (as can electric sparks), but sparks in and of themselves do not come from fires, those are called embers. And we have an article on that. The sparks described in this article, for the most part, don't have to do with fires. Thus, it is not a properly descriptive term. SilverserenC 07:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sparks are, by definition, flecks of fire per the OED: "A small particle of fire, an ignited fleck or fragment, thrown off from a burning body or remaining in one almost extinguished, or produced by the impact of one hard body on another.". If your topic is hot coals, embers, radioactive particles or other types of phenomenon then they are covered elsewhere: ember, hot particle, &c. Warden (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- My concise OED says 'fiery particle' not 'particle of fire'. The business of hot particle meaning a radioactive fragment or dust is a real problem though. I think I'll just change from Support to Comment. Dmcq (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Pyrotechnics section - subjective wording
[edit]From the Pyrotechnics section,
- "...carbon burns explosively in the hot iron and this produces good, branching sparks."
Good in this context is a bit subjective, isn't it? Would a better term be 'large' or 'bright' or something? Kierkkadon (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The word used frequently in the source is attractive, meaning aesthetically pleasing. Let's try pretty. Warden (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, loverly. Thanks. Kierkkadon (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Metalworking sentence fragment
[edit]The last sentence in the Metalworking section "or the resistance heating of spot welding.[10]" is obviously a fragment from a previous edit. I tried to track the change but failed. Changing the or to Or doesn't fix it and neither does removing the period in the preceding sentence. I could not figure out how to make it make sense. A better editor probably can by finding the original version. MisterHOP (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)