|WikiProject Stagecraft||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Explosives||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Pyrotechnics: Edit: Evidently for Ostensibly
"The foam caused the fire to spread rapidly and the resulting fire led to 100 deaths, ostensibly because their quick escape was blocked by ineffective exit doors."
Does this section really have a legitimate place in this entry? This is intended to be an encyclopedia, and this section does not detail the construction or operation of flashpots in general, and is primarily an assault on the practice of homebuilding them. An encyclopedia does not have the authority to say "should" or "shouldn't". At the most, this paragraph should be changed to make the danger known, and nothing else. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I (WikiPyroEngineer) propose to delete the homemade flashpots. Although originally it is most likely contributed with the best possible intentions, I think it is time to clean up this section, and the page in its entirety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiPyroEngineer (talk • contribs) 06:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Last two paragraphs need reworking
Safe (?) Fireworks
so called Safe Fireworks were made in germany in 1900s.Cosisted on various tyubes with colorful lithograph designs(cannons, toweres etc) That "fired" streamers, cottton balls etc.No mention of Safe Fireworks in article!(Decided/DatedAMMorn,Sat.July 4th,2009 21st cent. Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D>D>ULC) SWORDINHAND (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate to merge with this article, primarily since "pyrotechnics" deals primarily with equipment, products, and techniques. It seems more likely inflammist would fit in with pyrotechnician, since both are about the individuals who operate effects; however , as the article is written now it is not suitable for merger. The whole second half of the "inflammist" article suffers from the same problem as the Homemade Devices section does in this article: its A) not something you necessarily want to teach people; and B) it's unverifiable, and therefore unreferenceable. The cynic in me also finds it odd that all the references to the topic in a quick internet search turn up the wikipedia entry, and nothing else... huh? 04:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
There is clearly a difference between pyrotechnics and inflammatist as already identified by DJSparky. The article on pyrotechnics is largely about the science that enables such effects, whereas the inflammist item is about the role of a person undertaking effects using flame. --KiwiMadMac 05:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiwiMadMac (talk • contribs)
"as pioneered by KISS"
Don't forget Buffalo Bill, and the gamut of early American road shows. This is a section - nay a page - that needs total rework. I call bogus on it now. Too narrow vision, too partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Changed this line around, as KISS didn't "pioneer" the use of proximate pyro. The Who was using pyrotechnics onstage by 1967 (Keith Moon's exploding drumkit) and Pink Floyd was using them no later than 1969 (Royal Albert Hall performance with a gorilla firing a cannon and pink smoke bombs). KISS, on the other hand, didn't even start touring until 1973, and they didn't add pyro until after playing a few shows with Golden Earring (who'd been using it since the late '60s). The line, as written, wasn't accurate. I changed it to:
Many musical groups use pyrotechnics to enhance their live shows. Some of the earliest bands to use pyrotechnics were The Who, Pink Floyd, KISS and Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)