Talk:Plasticine

Ingedients

Does anyone know what the ingredients in plasticine are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesC (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 March 2005

I believe it's fundamentally dry clay and something oily and/or waxy to bind it instead of water. It seems to have been one of those things where the inventor (Harbutt) passed the original recipe on to his family and it's not public knowledge, but several websites say if you try to bake it you'll end up with a fire, which implies a hydrocarbon as the binding agent. --Andrew Norman 07:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://scorpius.spaceports.com/~goodwine/playdough.htm

Not sure if this is it, but give it a shot:

* 2 1/2 cups flour

* 1 cup salt

* 1/4 cup vegetable oil

* 1 cup water

* food colouring

Mix dry ingredients. Add oil and stir. Add water a little at a time. Stir until it holds together well. Knewad for 5 to 10 minutes. Divide dough into several pieces. Add food colouring a little at a time. Knead until each colour is evenly worked. Store in airtight containers.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ildfrozt (talk • contribs) 14:09, 28 September 2005

That is for Play-dough, which can easily dry out. Plasticine does not dry out. -- Pinktulip 09:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not based on clay; clay is essentially silicate based. Plasticine is based on calcium carbonate, which is mixed with the material known as "slackwax" (this is the soft oily wax that is extracted when lube oils are dewaxed). The addition of stearic acid prevents the mixture from becoming too "sticky" when handled. The characteristic smell of plasticine is actually a material called Irganox L130 which is added as an antioxidant. The main ingredients of plasticine (the calcium carbonate, slackwax and stearic acid) have no strong odour. One other error in the article: plasticine doesn't "melt". It may soften, but "melt" implies a change of state, and as plasticine is a blend of materials including a non-melting filler, then "melting" does not apply. StanPomeray (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you provide some reference for that which could be used in the article? Materialscientist (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not! I spent about 15 years in R&D as a formulation chemist/materials scientist and what I have stated above is the result of various discussions over the years with raw material suppliers and other people in the industry. I wouldn't be able to reference it to anything in writing - apart from anything else, I doubt you'd get Ciba (or BASF as they are now) to produce a product data sheet that says "Irganox L130 smells like Plasticine" LOL StanPomeray (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have experimented with making plasticine. From my experience, a number of ingredients can be used. The basis is that you need an inert safe powder, and a water replacer. The idea is to have clay that will not dry out. So.. clay... there are different recipes for that. Ask potters about this subject. I have a nephew who is a chemist who makes clay for high tension electricity insulators. It is surprising what goes into different clays for different purposes. Using Calcium Carbonate, is an intelligent choice of powder, as it is just chalk, white, and so will help show off colouring pigments and is readily available and safe. The binding agents are basically waxes and oils of varying viscosities and melting temperatures. Your choice there can vary on what characteristics you want. You need a wax/oil mixture that will keep the mixture malleable in the way you want, at the temperatures you are working at. After the powder, the main bulk of the mix will be a wax, which replaces the water of traditional water based clay . There are different types, but you need one that has a relatively low melting point and must stick to itself. Bees wax is good, but expensive. Petroleum based Micrpcrystaline waxes are soft but relatively hard to come by for the home hobbyist. Petroleum jelly and greases can be added to soften the waxes further. Fat and lard can also work to lower the softening temperature of the wax. Oil can also be used, but in my experience can make the mix 'wet' rather than just soft. Paraffin wax is not a good wax , as it has a reasonably high melting point and produces a crumbly mix and any stickiness in the mix must come from grease or petroleum jelly, which is not ideal. I have not used glycerin but it makes sense as a humidifier or water replacer. I have used it in gelatin molds and it works very well and lasts a long time. So in summary, the 'recipe' for plasticine does not have to be hard and fast. It can vary depending on your application, eg; car body design, special effects modeling in the movie industry, animation, and model making.

The recipe I started experimenting with is the following ( I cannot remember the source, but it was off the net years ago): In the interests of completeness, here is the arcana to invoke plasticene (Note: US gallons and such): 10 lb microcrystalline wax 1/2 gal. #10wt oil 4 lb plain automotive grease 25 lbs dry clay powder (Such as Kentucky ball clay) Metric: 4.480kg  (4480g) microcrystalline wax 1.273L  (1273ml) #10wt oil 1.792kg (1792g) plain automotive grease 11.2kg (11200g) dry clay powder (Such as Kentucky ball clay) quarter recipe: 1.12kg  (1120g) microcrystalline wax 0.31825L  (318ml) #10wt oil 0.448kg (448g) plain automotive grease 2.8kg (2800g) dry clay powder (Such as Kentucky ball clay)   Melt wax, oil, and grease together in an (electric?) frying kettle or chip pan; stir clay in slowly once melted. Pour into shallow microwave-safe plastic containers, or into a wet plaster mould. Pagestep007 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Picture

A picture of plasticine is needed.--Patchouli 00:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Many experiments have been attempted to create homemade recipe. Here is a successful attempt. Knowledgeable3000 (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Drying Plasticine

If Plasticine is flammable, due to its oil/petrolium jelly base, and it doesnt dry out, how do you cure/solidify the model you make? Is there a special chemical you spray or something? Is it even posible to do this? Any info would be great. Cort 68.57.202.60 05:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Plasticine becomes soft, malleable and workable when warmed in your hand and goes hard when cooled but when warmed again it becomes soft. John 89.145.245.86 (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't cure/solidify it. It's meant to be re-useable 86.145.131.125 (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. To dry, mostly freezing it will make it harden, but there is always a bit of squishiness at the bottom of the plasticine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.41.161 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 March 2012‎

Peistocene

oh, come on. Who can get confused about plasticine and peistocene? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.226.196 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 16 February 2007

The question is who wouldn't confuse pleistocene and plasticine?! That's one of my all-time favourite confusions, don't knock it! Or, if you are going to knock it, at least spell pleistocene correctly. Thanks. --Oolong (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Panorama

native resolution:9768x2416 image of a Plasticine art installation.. Suggestions or matters of relevance, please. --Devinly (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

External links

Can someone please find some better external links than the existing two? I understand this may be difficult but really, those links are appalling. One leads to a visual display hosted by the Museum of Bath on which the videos are disabled, meaning there is no information available, and the other appears to lead to forum thread that is barely legible. I will try and find some links when I have time, but until then could someone else please have a go? Faerie Queene (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk

swimming ear plugs look like this and windows office does not have this word in its dictionary - I wonder why? is it not a English word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgkprog (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

basic modelling strategies

Though Plasticine may be formed into an infinite variety of shapes, this may be done using just a few simple basic procedures, such as the following:

1) Tubes, rolled, using a flat surface, such as a melamine cheese board, for example.

2) Flat sheets, rolled with a rolling pin or a thick rod. These may be cut into flat shapes with a preferably blunted, pointed kitchen knife

3) Balls, rolled between the palms of the hands in a contrary orbital motion.

4) Freestyle modelling, using the fingers or appropriate tools.

These 4 modes may be combined to fully realise the astonishing range of forms available to the Plasticine sculptor.

In addition, the original Harbutt's factory provided a miniature brick-forming mould which consisted of a small hand-held board about 1 cm thick, pierced with several slots measuring about 1cm x 2 cm. This came with a matching push rod of the same dimensions. Plasticine was smeared into the slots, and the perfectly formed bricks were then rapidly and accurately extruded using the pushrod.

The author's grandparents possessed an example of this tool which they used regularly at the start of the last century, much as children would now play with Lego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.124.214 (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

James May's Toy Stories

James May's Toy Stories on BBC2, aired 11 July 2010, featured Plasticine, designing a garden for the Chelsea Flower Show, with remarkably good results.78.20.145.31 (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tried

But stupidity triumphed again. I tried to remove that poor quality example of a figure made of Plasticine, but repeatedly the page was vandalized by people putting it back in. Instead of that piece of crap there should be an example of professional work, like out of Wallace and Gromit or any other professional stop-motion animation using Plasticine. A bunch of nerds kept blindly reverting my edit and unjustifiably calling it vandalism, though, so I guess that's that. It's too bad the idea Wikipedia is based on is total bullshit, though. It's a bit depressing actually. You're supposed to be able to make an edit, justify it as I did, and at least have a discussion take place before the change is reverted. No wonder non-nerds like me don't want to bother even changing a typo. If I did that, no doubt someone like Reaper Eternal would revert it within seconds and call it vandalism. 174.91.1.138 (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons that you were getting reverted was because you didn't use the WP:Edit summary, so it was assumed the removal of content was vandalism. If you would like another picture to be used instead, please visit commons:Category:Plasticine and pick one out, so it can be added to the article. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The IP may also profit from reading Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Except the article's now been protected against IP edits, after that threat to use "infinite" addresses to keep reverting the deletion. So I've picked an image from the category and put it up myself. --McGeddon (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I gave a reason in the edit summary that Reaper Eternal either ignored or didn't read. I would do as you suggest, but we both know that would be changed back in seconds. The "threat" to use infinite addresses was based on Reaper Eternal not running to his nerd buddies and getting someone with greater power to protect the page. They don't seem to care that the request was unjustified. It's funny, a personal attack seems to be considered so much more heinous than unjustified, blind reverts. A personal attack on someone doesn't automatically make the edits unjustified. Think about that. Think - for a change. 174.91.5.19 (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Btw, if I had gone in and made the change you just did - replacing that ghastly picture with something professional that gives people an idea of the quality possible in professional hands instead of something that looks like it was slapped together by a two year old - it would have been reverted. Even if I had put something on the talk page, a guy like Reaper Eternal wouldn't have looked there before he changed it. His style is to blindly revert, then seek blocks and page protections. Imagine if he had been an anonymous IP like me - and had done exactly what he did? He would no doubt have also quickly found himself blocked. 174.91.5.19 (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If you go back to the very first edit today, see [1], there was no edit summary, and it was immediately reverted by ClueBot in the next edit, probably because of the use of the word "crappy". Perhaps, if you had queried on the talk page first about changing the picture, and not fed the fire in subsequent edits, this wouldn't have happened the way that it did. Think about it. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The first few I didn't give a reason, that's true, but after they were reverted so quickly I did. Yet they were still reverted because Reaper saw who it was and probably didn't bother to read any justification or if he did read it just rejected it out of hand. I'm not saying it was all other people, but if someone had bothered to even ask instead of just blocking me... I could have put someone on the discussion page but at that point I thought it was pointless. Well, anyway, a better picture has been put up which is all I wanted. You never know who is going to read this article, and it seems a better idea to have something of professional quality as an example. 174.91.5.19 (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me as an excellent opportunity for you to become involved in Wikipedia. Your idea was allright in the first place, all you need is some knowledge as to how things work and may I advise you that a friendly word leads to friendly reactions? So, take a daring step, make an account and come up with a nice username and go for it! (Be BOLD in updating, as they say over here) Better images, by the way, may often be found at Wikimedia Commons (just click on 'upload a File' on the left) or else, perhaps you'd like to upload your own? Best wishes,--Satrughna (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Aardman Animation

To the best of my knowledge, Aardman don't use Plasticine, they use an equivalent - and in their opinion, superior - product called Newplast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.194.33 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know (documentary I watched on the studio) Aardman make their own Plasticine. So they are able to adjust the recipe as they want. Pagestep007 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

IMHO in English child play with plasticine is called "clay modeling"

From both this article and elsewhere I looked, it seems that the material actually used by children is indeed "plasticine" or stuff with similar names and composition. But AFAIU in modern American English the activity itself is usually described using the word "clay" like "making models out of clay" or "clay modeling" etc. For instance google search { "clay modeling" children } returns 100K hits. That being said, Wikipedia has clay modeling article and apparently the "real" meaning of the term is some specialized process in automotive design. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Lucy in the Sky

How about the reference to "plasticine porters with looking glass ties" in the Beatles' Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.17.141 (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Spelling of Fuse

@Andy Dingley: This article uses British spellings (e.g. "colour"), per ENGVAR. See http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fuse?q=fuze#fuse-2. If there is a WP:RS saying that "fuse" is incorrect in this context, please give details, and obtain consensus for change before reverting again. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Fuze, as already advised. Consensus was established a long time ago that "fuze" was both correct in this context and is the favoured spelling for consistency across WP, see Contact fuze, Proximity fuze et al. Nor is this an ENGVAR issue, it's more of a technical jargon issue. Besides which, the UK English spelling is fuze. For refs, see Talk:Fuze, just to save re-typing. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at Talk:Fuze and I see mention of sources saying both spellings are acceptable and carry the same meaning, with some sources suggesting "fuze" is chiefly a US variant (so does the Oxford dictionary I linked above). I don't see any evidence that "fuse" is incorrect, nor any sign of consensus for a "favoured spelling for consistency across WP". Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The OED supports fuze. "oxforddictionaries.com" is a website and regularly, if not unreliable, then certainly simplistic to the point of uselessness. This is not a simple issue, but it is one that has been hammered out before. See also Talk:Contact fuze. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Talk:Contact fuze. I see evidence there to suggest the -z spelling is considered more technically correct in some circles. However, the SOED entry for fuse begins, "Also *fuze." The * denotes "now used primarily in the United States". I'm afraid I'm still not convinced that the audience of this article will see "fuze" as anything other than a spelling mistake. Burninthruthesky (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

How about using the real OED? Also the technical literature of the field. There is no evidence whatsoever (even in the archives of the OED, I asked) for "primarily in the United States" either now or hisorically. The UK military sources, from the development of mechanical fuzes in the mid 19th century, use "fuze". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Well I've never been in a situation before where the SOED on my bookshelf wasn't sufficient. I discovered I can access the OED online thanks to my local library membership, so I had a look. It lists "fuze" as an 18 19^th century variant. So I dispute the claim, "The OED supports fuze". Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC); correction - 1800s not C18 11:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

From Collins English dictionary:

Fuse v. [not relevant to this discussion] -n. soft wire with low melting point, used as safety device in electrical systems. combustible cord for igniting bomb etc. (no mention of 'fuze' as alternate spelling.)

Fuze n. device for intiating explosive device (usually military). (no mention of 'fuse' as alternate speling.)

Or better still, I just found this left over from when I when I attended the RN explosives course. From Ministry of Defence (Army) publication, Explosives Terms and Definitions:

(page 33) Fuse: Cord or tube for the transmission of flame or explosion usually consisting of cord or rope with gunpowder or high explosive spun into it. (The spelling FUZE may also be met for this term, but FUSE is the preferred spelling in this context.) -their emphasis

(page 35) Fuze: A device with explosive components designed to initiate a main charge. (The spelling FUSE may also be met for this term, but FUZE is the preferred spelling in this context.) -their emphasis

From the above, it seems that the Ministry of Defence prefer the spelling 'fuze', and who are we to argue with the main authority on military ordnance. As I said in my edit summary, the correct spelling is 'fuze', but a fuze may contain a fuse (as in a hand grenade). 86.145.215.191 (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of the paper Collins English dictionary to hand, although I've no reason to doubt the quote above. I notice their online definition differs. The MOD source confirms that both spellings are to be found. As I suggested above, we should consider the WP:AUDIENCE for this article about Plasticine are unlikely to be military specialists. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC); Comment revised having read again Talk:Fuze#A possible way out. 08:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"Misspell for the unfamiliar" isn't a policy. Nor is removing the link to the relevant article, because you presumably don't want to pipe the link from presentation of the "s" spelling to what WP is using as standard and consistent "z" spelling.

Yes, this term is unfamiliar. So we should link it. We should also use what WP has already adopted as the consistent spelling.

Why are you and Hengistmate so keen to remove the link to the article? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a misspelling. "Fuse" is an everyday word understandable by most readers in context, so should not be linked. Its spelling is correct according to the OED and other cites above. There is some evidence that "Fuze" is correct as a technical term. The Manual of Style says, "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do." See WP:JARGON. Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"Fuse" is most likely to be misunderstood as the better known electrical device.

Why are you against linking the term, which would clear up any uncertainty? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't see anything objectionable about [[Fuze|fuse]] if a link is considered necessary, but I don't for one moment believe that readers will misunderstand "bomb fuse" to mean an electrical fuse. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The MOD document states that 'fuze' is the "preferred spelling" not that both spellings are acceptable. Burninthruthesky is deliberately misinterpreting the reference to support his own cause. Regardless, if the project has already adopted the 'fuze' spelling elsewhere, as appears to be the case, then consistency demands that it be spelt 'fuze' in this article. It also should be wikilinked to the fuze article (which would clear up any potential confusion with electrical fuses and combustible cords - that is what wikilinks are for). 86.145.215.191 (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I said "both spellings are to be found", which is consistent with the MOD cite above: "The spelling FUSE may also be met for this term, but FUZE is the preferred spelling in this context."; the context in that case being an "explosives course". There is no requirement for consistency between articles; on the contrary, words should be chosen to suit the context of the article. I maintain that in this article, the OED spelling is the most appropriate. I am not supporting any "cause" apart from WP policy, which I have cited above. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Where in the quoted MOD doument does it say 'fuze' should only be used in the context of an explosives course? The answer is that it doesn't and once again you are synthesising the reference to support your chosen version. The reference states that 'fuze' is the preferred spelling without any qualification. As far as the OED spelling is concerned, my OED lists 'fuze' as a valid spelling so I agree that we go with the OED spelling of 'fuze' given that it matches the MOD's preferred spelling. 86.145.215.191 (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"explosives course" were your words describing the context in which you were given that information. Whatever the MOD source means by "this context", it is clearly a specialist document. My SOED and http://www.oed.com do not list fuze as a current British spelling. Anyway, I've probably said enough on this now. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem transfixed with the explosives course being the context for this particular document. It is not the context at all. It is merely where I encountered it for the first time. Its context is all encompassing because it is available on indent from Her Majesty's Stationary Office to anyone who can raise indents (it is not classified). 86.145.215.191 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Fuze. There is a convention, but (as you have noticed), the convention is used but not strictly followed on either side of the Pond. The fuze in the article is battery powered, so there's a complex function, so the convention would say it's a fuze, and I would use fuze in this article as that is the spelling adopted previously by WP editors for munitions. See also Danger UXB (which uses "fuse") and SC250 bomb#Fuzes (which uses "fuze" mostly, "fuse" ocasionally, "defuse" (British spelling for either fuse or fuze), and references a 2015 Southwark News article that uses "fuse". This is not a big issue; WP:LAME. Glrx (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

See the lead for fuse (explosives): "In common usage, the word fuse is used indiscriminately. However, when being specific (and in particular in a military context)...". If this were an article about military ordnance, I would support "fuze". It isn't. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It is. The use of Plasticine described here is very specific. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC

Agreed. This usage is very specific to a military context being, as it is, a specific type of bomb dropped by the German military (specifically: the Luftwaffe - or German Air Force to you). 86.145.215.191 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

... and I have just noticed that a new editor has weighed in with this edit. Clearly he or she felt the wrong spelling was confusing (and also appears unwaware of this discussion). 86.145.215.191 (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, the timing of that edit suggests it is an immediate response to the first sentence of my comment from the previous evening. The IP address belongs to a mobile telephone network, so we cannot know anything about the identity of the person who made it. In any case WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Er, no it isn't. It's about Plasticine. Lots of clues to that - title of article, etc. IMHO, the use of Plasticine described here is quite unnecessarily specific. It isn't even particularly notable that Plasticine was used for something. They might have also used a bit of string, which would require another link. It seems like one of those facts that someone puts in Wikipedia just because they can. I think there's a word for it in Wikipedia somewhere. Btw, I notice that "fuzes" are "defused". Isn't that odd? Hengistmate (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It was a very important use of plasticine. I would be interested to see how you could make a 'bit of string' perform the same function.

Incidentally, I see from the edit history that Hengistmate made three reverts to the article almost within 24 hours. A further revert would have been a violation of WP:3RR under the 'gaming the system' provision. Instead a new editor Burninthruthesky less than 3 hours later takes up the revert string. Is anyone else's sock alarm going off? Just to add insult: Hengistmate accuses Andy Dingley of edit warring with this edit when he was still only at 1RR (Hengistmate was at 2RR at this time - but now at 4RR). 86.145.215.191 (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

These revert timings are not correct. Anyway, please WP:FOC. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

They are entirely accurate. See [2]. 86.145.215.191 (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly - this is not an article about military ordnance. The details discussed here would be more suited to the linked article on Bomb disposal, but I don't see any mention of plasticine or liquid oxygen in that article. I would support removal of all detailed discussion of fuzes from this article, as it seems to be causing controversy. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Burninthruthesky, are you familiar with WP:EASTEREGG? Why are you changing [[fuze]] to [[fuze|fuse]]?

Other than simple contrarianism, what possible advantage does that convey to the reader? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe that Burninthruthesky has stated his reasoning many times above. And while discussion is ongoing, we should stick with the version at th ebeginning, which is here - and uses "fuse". Constant changing to "fuze" while it is still being discussed is in breach of WP:BRD, edit-warring and just rude. Chaheel Riens (talk)

That's not the version that you have reverted to. Your version violates WP:EGG and WP:INTDABLINK. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to avoid any confusion, [[fuse]] is a DAB link, but [[fuze|fuse]] is not. I agree with Chaheel Riens the latter is not EGGy. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy now? Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Chaheel, how do you possibly justify this edit, where you removed the link altogether? How does that possibly improve things for the reader? Other than the most childish of edit warring, "You reverted me! So I'm going to revert EVERYTHING!!!", why would you have done this? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the page for a week as this is descending into a really lame edit war. Please come to an agreement here... BethNaught (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd note that the original behavioural issue of Hengistmate trolling has been at ANI for some days. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW after reading the article and various other articles I'm satisfied that the appropriate spelling here is fuze with a z, since the article clearly does refer to a complex bomb activation device and that thing is spelt with a z. (not a military expert so sorry if that sounds silly or inaccurate) BethNaught (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, I reverted back to the version prior to all this nonsense, as per that BRD thing. I'm ambivalent about "fuse" or "fuze" - but what I do hate is when those proposing what becomes a controversial change keep insisting that their changed version stays in situ while the discussion is ongoing.

It's lame that not only are so many experienced editors involved in this, but that they're all prepared to throw said experience out of the window and revert to blinkered edit warring "just because they believe they are right" - to paraphrase the EW warning. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Thank you for your response. It does seem to have calmed things down at least for now. Little did I know when I tried to help with this content dispute I'd be stepping on a landmine (excuse the pun ). I'm not an expert either. I am British, and haven't come across "fuze" before. I have seen evidence the spelling exists as a piece of specialist WP:JARGON which isn't always used consistently, but I have been unable to find any WP:RS to verify that it is a generally accepted, current, British English spelling. I have found several dictionary sources that say it is not. The note at the top of this page confirms British spelling should be used here. I note Fuze used to contain a mention that the spelling "fuse" is sometimes used for this meaning, but it was removed a few months ago [3]. I am not convinced that Wikipedia is presenting a WP:NPOV on this matter. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Action. This puppy is an orphan in my browser, and I don't want to rekindle the fire here. All sides ack that both spellings are used. Andy Dingley, 86.145.215.191, Glrx, and BethNaught go for "fuze" based on complex-function and military terminology. Burninthruthesky wants "fuse" based upon dictionary sources. Hengistmate states no position but says defusing a fuze is odd. Chaheel Riens and David Biddulph take no position on the spelling. My read is the consensus is "fuze". Glrx (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, of course the spelling is "fuze", and this was confirmed by the admin BethNaught in this edit above, soon after protecting the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

They also asked us to "come to an agreement". Admins do not have a supervote. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I would summarize like this:

• "fuze" is used in some military forces and in Wikipedia articles about military hardware; this article is not about military hardware.
• Per WP:JARGON, specialist terms should not be used when a more common one is available.
• This article uses British English, and the OED lists "fuse", not "fuze".

As I said above and at Talk:Fuze, WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote, it is a weighing of "legitimate concerns" through policy. The only policy-based argument on spelling advanced here favours the status quo. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

How is this are not about military hardware? It is not mostly about military hardware, but for all the content where "fuse" is involved at all, that is about sophisticated fuzes that are very obviously fuzes (z) not fuse (s).

There are arguments for keeping this mention of the German bomb fuzes, or for removing it as UNDUE, but there is no basis for choosing to start misspelling it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

We agree this article is not mostly about military hardware. Therefore it is not an "intrinsically techincal" topic, and should avoid use of WP:JARGON. Burninthruthesky (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

To quote JARGON, "See also: Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable"

How does a deliberate misspelling as an affectation make an article more understandable? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"Bomb fuse" is perfectly understandable, and supported by reliable sources, including the cited source. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"Bomb fuse" is still wrong, and now you're reduced to quoting random bits of Amazon's product blurb as if they're RS! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No. Compare http://www.royalengineersbombdisposal-eod.org.uk/books.html. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting "Bomb fuse" is not supported by the cited source? As a courtesy, I am pinging Roy Jaruk who originally added the citation. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's a heads up: for any combination of letters you want to PROVE! is in use, then somewhere out there is a website that is doing it. It's a big interweb. The editorial skill needed, which you are singularly ignoring here, is that some sites are credible, others are not. A product blurb on Amazon: not. A site for a local branch of the British Legion or the RE veterans Association: not. They are nowhere near RS: they are not traceable in authorship, they are clearly not paying care in their proofreading, their content is anyway broadly trivial. If you don't realise this, then you have a long way to go as an editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I already said I am not "quoting random bits of Amazon's product blurb as if they're RS!" The second link proves it is not Amazon's blurb. It is the synopsis of the published, printed book cited in the article. Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I changed the spelling to "fuze" per the discussion above. Burninthruthesky clearly still dissents, but consensus is not unanimity. BethNaught's opinion is not a supervote, but it is a disinterested opinion. Glrx (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I have replied at User talk:Glrx. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sadly Burninthruthesky in the sky is refusing to accept the consensus and has resumed his edit-warring. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Without backing in reliable sources or policy, the argument here for "fuze" counts for nothing towards consensus. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

To quote your own recent edit: ".. you now appear to be flogging a WP:DEADHORSE. It is getting tiresome.". --David Biddulph (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Warned for disruption

Is the (seemingly inevitable) next one WP:ANEW or WP:ANI? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The outcome of this discussion is disputed. Anyone who believes there is consensus for this spelling change, and wants to pursue it, may request a formal WP:CLOSE. Even if it is found there is consensus, the edit would still need a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Request

Change the spelling of "fuse" to "fuze", per consensus established above.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The proposed alteration on the grounds that "fuse" is incorrect is not supported by reliable works of reference. Examples of the use of the alternative spelling do not change that; they merely demonstrate the references' explanation that a variant is sometimes found. Hengistmate (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I note that Hengistmate included some quotes from references in his recent edit which actually supported the 'fuze' spelling, but then followed the words 'fuze' in each case with '(sic)' indicating that he believes the author used the wrong spelling. This must qualify as editing while ignoring what the references say because you believe your own incorrect spelling is better. If that is not trolling, and clearly edit warring to edit against the references that he himself provided, then I don't know what is. Hengistmate's own provided references clearly support the correct spelling of 'fuze'.

If we discount Hengistmate on the clear grounds that he is editing against (his own provided) references and clearly trolling, that leaves Burninthruthesky as the sole editor who is demanding the spelling 'fuse' completely against a clear consensus for 'fuze' (and clearly supported by the provided references). 86.153.133.193 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of sourcing (there are sources supporting both), I still believe there is a valid question over use of either the technical spelling or the dictionary spelling. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Glrx has produced a comprehensive list below of no shortage of references that support 'fuze'. As has been demonstrated, you have deliberately misquoted references you have supplied to support your trolling (along with your fellow troll Hengistmate). As Glrx has correctly observed, dictionary references are not admissible because they are not authoritative works on the specific subject of military ordinance. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I have never "misquoted" Jappy because I have never seen it. As I said at ANI, my attempts to verify what Jappy actually says led me to believe that the version placed in the article last August was correct. Have you personally verified the quotes you have presented here, or are you taking another editor's word for it? That was my mistake. Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I never said that you had misquoted Jappy. Your misquote was with this edit where you misquoted the source you provided. In any case Amazon is not a reliable source on military ordnance. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

"Bomb fuse" was a quote of the text in the article, not the link. Sorry for the confusion. Burninthruthesky (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You are right: it wasn't a misquote. But it was from a story (a tertiary source) rather than any secondary authoritative source such as the copious quantity listed below. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record: I was able to locate Jappy in my local library yesterday and was able to check the quote supplied in the article. It is  Verified that the quoted fragment uses the 'fuze' spelling (as does the remainder of the text - based on a random thumbing) though I acknowledge that Andy Dingley has already verified this. I was unable to locate the book cited by Burninthruthesky, but from other books sold by Amazon, it is clear that the synopsis on their website is a direct quote of the synopsis from the book's dust jacket or back cover (why rewrite what is already available?). It is  Verified that the synopsis uses the spelling 'defuzed' and it is highly unlikely that the author would use a different spelling for the synopsis than in the text of the book. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I was going to make the change as it seemed that only Burninthruthesky disagreed, but now we have another dissenter. I've disabled the request; please continue the discussion if it's important to you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, objections were made in edit summaries before discussion started on this page. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

For the complete record, the only objections before this thread started and made in the edit summary, against 'fuze' were made by yourself and only yourself (ignoring the clear troll). Chaheel Riens did change the spelling to 'fuse' but his first edit acknowledged the existence of the correct spelling 'fuze'. As stated here and elsewhere, there is not only a clear consensus for 'fuze' (and at least one admin has stated as such above) but the supplied references (all three of them) clearly support it. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment

This debate is about the spelling of the device that is screwed into the nose (or tail) of a bomb and causes the bursting charge to detonate.

There is a long history with this dispute in several venues.

It has been claimed that "fuze" is an American spelling and this is a British English article. The claim is dubious; WP has pictures of British armourers using "fuze". Many of the diagrams at Fuze#Gallery are British War Office diagrams that use the word "fuze". See also Artillery fuze.

In the above discussion, 86.145.215.191 cites an on-point distinction from the Ministry of Defence that prefers 'fuze'. Explosive Terms and Definitions should be a reliable secondary source that trumps any tertiary source such as dictionary.

There's a claim that says "fuze" would be OK if this were a munitions article, but it's not a munitions article, so "fuze" should not be used because it is jargon. I do not see "fuze" as jargon. It is not something that will be misunderstood by the general reader. It is not an opaque word like "instantiation" or "rhinoplasty".

Great weight was placed on the OED's pronouncement of a secondary spelling. However, OxfordReference sources were given that went the opposite way for both American and British English. Oxford is a fickle source on this matter. It was also pointed out that dictionaries are WP:TERTIARY sources; they are not authorities.(See Talk:Fuze#Draft 2 for Etymology section)

If one goes to reliable secondary authorities, then there is often a distinction such as the Ministry of Defence made above.

The simple view is a fuSe with an "s" looks likes a cord and burns. See William Bickford's safety fuse. It's spelled with an "s" on both sides of the Atlantic.

The thing that gets screwed into the nose (or tail) of a bomb or artillery shell is a fuZe with a "z".

Many people do not understand is that high explosives such as dynamite and TNT cannot be initiated with a mere safety fuse, a match, or a primer. Just setting the explosive on fire is not enough. High explosives must be made to detonate; that requires a significant mechanical shock, and a safety fuse does not deliver any mechanical shock.

The devices that perform the shock function go by many names: detonators, blasting caps, exploders, and fuZes. These devices involve an explosive train.

Here's a reliable secondary source about military explosives and their development. It doesn't state the distinction between the spellings, but it uses the distinction.

Military Explosives, (September 1984) Department of the Army Technical Manual TM 9-1300-214

• Roger Bacon wrote down the a formula for black power in 1249. (page 2-2) Before the 1800s, most blasting was done with low explosive black powder mixtures.
• "At the end of the 14th century, a hand gun was invented that weighed 4.5 kilograms (10 lbs) and fired lead shot. ... A lit match or FUSE of serpentine black powder was used to ignite the propellant powder charge through a touch hole in the breech." (page 2-3)
• In 1588, explosive "shells were made from the hollow iron balls filled with gunpowder. The gunpowder was ignited by a FUZE consisting of a hollow tube filled with slow burning serpentine powder...." (page 2-3)
• In 1613, blasting powder was used in German mines. (page 2-3) All that was needed to cause an explosion was to confine the black powder and set the powder on fire.
• In 1807, Forsyth patents the mercury fulminate primer. (page 2-4)
• In 1831, William Bickford of England invented the safety FUSE. "The Bickford FUSE consisted of a core of black powder tightly wrapped in textiles.... The FUSE soon replaced the less reliable FUSES which were made of straws or quills filled with black powder." (page 2-5)
• 1863 J. Willibrand prepares TNT; it is not used as an explosive until 1904. (page 2-6)
• Alfred Nobel invented dynamite 1866-1867. It's a high explosive, and just igniting it with a fuse is not good enough. Nobel also invented the fulminate blasting cap, "a device consisting of mercury fulminate in a copper tube used to detonate explosives.... This cap was crimped to one end of a safety FUSE (e.g. Bickford FUSE), and then inserted into the dynamite cartridge." (page 2-6)
• In 1868, English chemist E. A. Brown, developed the notion of a booster explosive. (page 2-6)
• In 1879, Michler and Meyer prepared the booster explosive Tetryl.
• In 1885-1888 Frenchman Eugene Turpin (following Hermann Sprengel) develops high explosive artillery shells that use a detonator. French and British governments adopt the design. (page 2-7)
• In 1889-1890, Nobel laureate Theodor Curtius suggests using azides for primers. (page 2-7)
• In 1900, TNT could be manufactured cheaply. (page 2-8)
• In 1906, Russian Col. A. A. Solonia proposes lead azide for initiating explosives. (page 2-9)
• In 1912, the US Army adopts TNT. (page 2-9)
• In 1914, E. von Herz preparse the initiating explosive lead styphnate. Solonia proposes its use in compound detonators. (page 2-9)

The book also has a description of an explosive train (pages 3-1 to 3-2): primer, booster, main bursting charge.

The above is background. Yes, it is an American source, but it uses FUSE for the cord-like thing, and it is uses FUZE when detonators, blasting caps, or boosters are needed or when it's the device on an artillery shell.

Here's a source with a page that shows a bomb and says, "FUZES are devices that set off a bomb's main charge." The source is The New Weapons of the World Encyclopedia, The Diagram Group, 1980, St. Martins, New York, 978-0-312-36832-6, page 236, https://books.google.com/books?id=3Il9ubyJCisC&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&source=bl&hl=en&f=false

Of course, it's published in New York, so it's using AE.

Here's an English language secondary source from Europe that explains the distinction between FUSE and FUZE:

Rudolf Meyer, Josef Koehler, Axel Homburg Explosives, sixth, completely revised, ed. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim, 2007 ISBN 978-3-527-31656-4 (page 145):

• Fuse

An igniting or explosive device in form of a cord, consisting of a flexible fabric tube and a core of low or high explosive. Used in blasting and demolition work, and in certain munitions. A fuse with a black power or other low explosive core is called a safety fuse or blasting fuse. A fuse with a PETN or other high explosive core is called "detonating cord" or primacord.

• Fuze (Zünder, Anzünder; fusée)

A device with explosive or pyrotechnic components designed to initiate a train of fire or detonation.

• Fuze, delay.

Any fuze incorporating a means of delaying its action. Delay fuzes are classified according to the length of time of the delay.

Here's a British book about explosives. It uses FUSE in the context of safety fuse. When it needs something more, then it uses "detonator" or "blasting cap". It never addresses the device screwed into the nose of a bomb or artillery shell, so it never uses FUZE.

High Explosives and Propellants, S. Fordham, Second edition, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1980, ISBN 978-0080238333

"Equally important, [Nobel] realised that nitroglycerine, unlike gunpowder, could not be set off by flame, but needed a shock to cause effective initiation. He therefore invented first his patent detonator incorporating gunpowder, and then finally the modern detonator containing mercury fulminate. This he introduced in 1865." (page 13)

There's a "plain detonator" diagram on page 100. Tube with initiating explosive.

Electric detonators pass a current through a wire to ignite some flash powder [like the Estes rocket igniter used by the Boston Marathon bombers ]; the rest is similar to a plain detonator; the fire ultimately starts the detonation wave (the BMBs did not need a detonator because they didn't use a high explosive).

A modern electric detonator will have a fuse head (which starts the fire like an ordinary safety fuse), a delay element (ordinary fuse function), a priming charge (start the detonation), and a base charge. (page 112, 116)

Here's a detailed reference in a British encyclopedia (follow the link! it is several pages of "fuze"):

The Encyclopædia Britannica: The New Volumes, Vol 30, 12 edition, London, 1922, "Air bombs", pages 84-87, https://books.google.com/books?id=8Uw0AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&source=bl&hl=en&f=false

The volume primarily uses "FUZE"; it has 9 instances of "FUSE", but some are obvious misspelling of "FUZE", and some are about fusing things together in different subject areas.

Also see "fuze" used in its article in teh same volume on

"Ammunition", pages 119-136, especially "Ammunitions:FUZES", pages 128-135. It goes into great detail about their operation.

If you need a more recent edition of the encyclopedia, see: http://www.britannica.com/technology/bomb-weapon which states, "The typical conventional bomb is a streamlined cylinder that consists of five major parts: an outer casing, the inner explosive material, devices such as fins to stabilize the bomb in flight, one or more FUZEs to ignite the bomb’s main charge, and a mechanism for arming the fuze or preparing it to explode." (The statement misuses the word "ignite", but it's a tertiary source.)

The Brittanica artillery fuze article uses fuzes corresponding to the list of British fuzes at the Ammunition Pages website:

• http://www.ammunitionpages.com/download/245/British%20fuzes%2C%20introduction.pdf

That list of the official British fuze designations suggests the British use of the word "Fuze" goes back to early 1800s and continues through the modern era

1805: Fz time mortar large No 35

1830: Fz time 15-sec w/detonator No 43

A specialty book about British fuzes uses FUZE in its title:

British Bomb and Rocket Pistols and FUZEs, 1914-2007, David Andres and Alan Swan, http://britishbombfuzes.co.uk/order/

Going back to some American sources, we have

During the US Civil War, artillery shells had "fuzes": see picture showing contemporary packaging with label "Frankford Arsenal, 1863, 12 Second FUZEs", http://www.ebay.com/itm/ORIGINAL-CIVIL-WAR-FRANKFORD-ARSENAL-12-SECOND-FUSES-DATED-1863-3-EMPTY-3-X-2-/281806584163

Here's a textbook about the Civil War: The Mechanical FUZE and the Advance of Artillery in the Civil War, 2010, McFarland Publishers, Edward B. McCaul Jr., ISBN 978-0786446131

The Ministry of Defence citation above clearly shows that "fuze" is the preferred British spelling for the munitions device. "Fuse" is acceptable. Other secondary sources say the same thing. Some lengthy British encyclopedia articles show more knowledge of the subject than OED, and the articles use "fuze".

Glrx (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but this isn't about sourcing, the ongoing ANI thread is about edits like this, where very clear sources are being simply inverted by the editors involved to misrepresent what they actually say. This hasn't been a "question" requiring clarification for some time now, it's about an editor who is so keen on disruptive trolling that he will simply misrepresent anything to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't twigged that Burninthruthesky was also misquoting the references he supplied. This therefore also categorises Burninthruthesky as a troll synthesising the references to support a non case. Since we can now eliminate two trolls from all of this, it now means that the consensus is unanimous for the 'fuze' spelling.

Andy's recent cleanup removed a redundant reference from the article. Since it clearly supports the 'fuze' spelling, I have placed it here. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

And now we have two new twists. An IP editor changes the spellings of 'fuze' to 'fuse' throughout the article and in the quoted fragments with this edit. Now of which of our two trolls is this a rather obvious sockpuppet? It is obviously Hengistmate because that edit and the next one by him at this article were within ten minutes of each other. An SPI case has been raised (and I note that there is long history of such socking). Which brings me neatly to my next point...

Hengistmate just nine minutes after the above edit deleted the section on defuzing bombs entirely with this edit. Note that his edit summary says, 'Sorry. Source doesn't support. "I think I used Plasticine, actually."'. Once again he is misquoting the sources (and thus deliberately trolling) because the last source supplied (and remember it was supplied by himself) says precisely, "I think I used Plasticine, actually". 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

References

The two photos' captions

The periods at the end of the captions in the article's two photos should be removed, per WP:CAPFRAG. Nightscream (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Request not in the right format, but nevertheless  Done 86.153.133.193 (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 February 2016

"A similar product, "Kunst-Modellierthon" (known as Plastilin), was invented by Franz Kolb of Munich, Germany in 1880... is wrong!

"The story of Kolb begins in 1890 with the invention of plasticine by the Munich pharmacist Franz Kolb. This resulted to the formation of a company, that since then produces modeling clay..."

http://www.kolb-technology.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF-Dateien/Kolb_Classic_D.pdf

End request --> Nikopolis1912 11:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The English version of that document says the "history of Kolb begins in 1890 with Franz Kolb". According to http://kpi.ua/en/node/9993, his earlier invention was patented in 1880, in agreement with the article. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC); corrected 11:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Disabled for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Putting one's foot in it.

All the fuzz about spelling seems to have obscured what might be seen as an omission in this article. Whilst it can undoubtedly be argued that a bomb disposal officer thinking he might have used some Plasticine in 1943 is "notable", I am surprised that there is no mention at all of the Plasticine indicator board used in athletics events, something which it is quite easy to support with references. Hengistmate (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It was there for years,[4] but removed by an IP editor after nobody added any references to the CN tag. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot how Wikipedia works. Hengistmate (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The trouble is that the content you've now added is incorrect. There is no "10 cm strip" of Plasticine involved. The Plasticine indicator board is made of wood (or similar), not Plasticine: only the chamfered edges of it (each 18mm wide at most) are filled with Plasticine. Are you going to fix this? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Jesus wept - why didn't you fix it yourself if you know so much about the bloody sport to comment on the inaccuracy. You know - "Wikipedia - the encyclopedia anybody can edit"? Instead of being snarky why not try being collaborative? Would it really hurt you so much to support and assist what are clearly good edits? Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not? Simply because I don't want to give Hengistmate the opportunity to start another of his little pissing matches. Read the source he gave. It explains the situation quite clearly. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

That's the most pathetic response I think I've ever seen to a perfectly valid question. If you'd corrected the entry - which I note you've now done, and should have done in the first place - there would have been no comeback, but instead by not making the change and sniping at Hengistmate you instead gave everybody the perfect opportunity to question you - or as you say "start another of his little pissing matches". Your behaviour prompted this, not his.

And he didn't technically provide a source, just mentioned it. I provided the source, and understand it quite clearly, which is why I made the change. You appear to understand it clearly as well - which is why you should have made the change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I think these might be the shrewdest comments I've read anywhere on Wikipedia. Watch out for an ANI. Hengistmate (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There's already an ANI ongoing about this page, albeit for slightly different reasons - fuze/fuse - and I don't think it's necessary to start another one. Andy Dingley was perfectly correct in his comments and observations about athletics, (even if he preferred to use them as a criticism of another editor, rather than as an improvement to the encyclopedia) - but now that section is correct I see no reason to carry on his very own pissing match. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You do not get to tell other editors how much they should be editing. Get off your horse right now and drop the superior attitude. As to Hengistmate, I'll let his latest (admitted) edits stand for themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

For somebody who didn't want a pissing match, you sure seem to be going for the distance record. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Cheeky Jappy.

What more can I do? Jappy misrepresents Hudson. Is it synth? Vandalism? Does that make him a troll? Can he be blocked? Whatever, the incorrect attribution makes it not an RS. Maybe the article should say, "Hudson thought . . . " I am given to wondering what some other "editors" might make of someone's thoughts being reported as fact if it were to occur elsewhere." Hengistmate (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Above post from established sockpuppeteer and troll. I'm afraid you have no credibility here. WP:DENY applies. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2016, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC+0)

The point at issue is whether this passage should be included in the article. I have suggested that "Hudson thought he might have used Plasticine" is more suitable, since that's what Jappy's quote says, but it has been reversed a number of times. What we must decide from the sources is how to reflect them. Liquid oxygen and German bomb fuses are interesting things in themselves, but the article is about Plasticine and its uses, so the use of Plasticine is a sine qua non. To settle this once and for all (and anyone can answer): in the defusing process described in the paragraph under discussion, did Hudson use Plasticine? Hengistmate (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggested earlier that removing the content completely might reduce the disruption we've seen recently, but I think it is a shame for content decisions to be made that way. Anyway, there is a valid question as to whether it belongs in the article at all. I've seen other sources mentioning the liquid oxygen method ([5] and [6]), but I notice neither specifically mention Plasticine. I agree the Jappy reference which apparently says "I think I used plasticine" is not very strong support. I would say the event was notable, but I'm not so convinced it was a notable use of Plasticine. I'm tending towards removal unless the reference to Plasticine is found in more sources. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This [7] does talk about plasticine (you can search inside the preview if you're logged on). Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It's worth bearing in mind that this was the 1940's. What other material was available at that time that had the desired properties of being flexible; moldable; would adhere to the bomb casing and didn't explode in contact with liquid oxygen? Further plasticine is now and was then a standard military stores item (as long as you were content to have it in grey). Anything else would have had to have been procured specially.

A more interesting question is: why use liquid oxygen (it is well documented that they did)? Liquid nitrogen would have been a far better choice. A lower temperature (-195°C as against -182°C for oxygen) so doing the job quicker; cheaper; no danger of spontaneous explosion should it come into contact with oil or grease and no danger of making the defuzer's clothing highly flammable should it be spilt on those clothes. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)