Talk:Salute (pyrotechnics)

Banter

I don't know how to edit the reference properly, so I'll just comment here. The nh.gov pointer is obsolete. There is now a third edition, maybe someone can fix the text.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/firesafety/fireworks/documents/FireworksEnforcementGuide2008-ThirdEdition.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.236.104 (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this information is CRAP! Someone needs to site some sources, this is all total bullshit.

There are some factual things that have been taken out of this page. Like the SILVER SALUTES! That dates back to old American History just like the classic M-80 and some "know it all" went ahead and erased it. Are you the one who has been taken it down?

I'm going to re-insert all the information that has been erased and I'm going to provide them with sources to prove that Silver Salutes ins't just a bunch of crap as you say.

The pictures that were taken down by I don't know who were put there to help others get a visual idea of what they are!

A lot of the other labels such as M-100 A.K.A. M-1000 A.K.A. Block Buster do exist and are being sold on the black market present day!

Let's dispute this like grown adults and not with temper tantrums!

While you're at it, you should probably poke around and find out about the Guidelines of Style. Just for future reference. (I've cleaned it up already.) Fifth Rider 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up a bit more, and silver salutes are real... Teque5 05:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone here knows anything about the fireworks discussed here, the article should look a bit more professional. Also, I think we should be a bit more clear on the naming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.161.228 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

If you look at all these pages together, they clearly belong in this one place with some proper redirects. Discuss. I assume there are some other pages that can be placed here as well. Teque5 05:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem there. If we were to merge these, we'd have to find a common formatting for all types of salutes that could include more info beyond mere specifications. The term "cherry bomb" has a lot of cultural resonance, and it would be hard to do that justice in the current format. However, we don't have enough material here to divide it into Technical and Social articles. I would suggest instead that a simple "See Also" section in both articles would suffice. I'll do that now. Fifth Rider 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German Salute

Are there simular products in the US?
I wish you all a Happy New Year.--Nemissimo (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are such things. String wound salutes - not necessarily cubical - in addition to other pyrotechnic devices designed to create an exceptionally loud report, are known as maroons in the pyrotechnic trade. Maroons may be fired with either timed fuses (spoolette) or electrically, as are many theatrical devices. -- NReitzel (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.fireworks.co.uk/abt/glossary.html

Reorganization

This page spends most of it's space discussing amateur-built pyrotechnics that are illegal in the United States and many other countries. I think it would serve better to group the discussion of "bootleg" salutes and then include information about professional salutes, currently made and sold legally. An aside: silver salutes were commercial items, made up until circa 1966. -- NReitzel (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

Hi. I wonder how much of this article is of general significance. As a UK reader, this seems like a list of product descriptions. Is that a fair observation? Could some of the general comments be transferred to the fireworks article, and the rest deleted?

I've done some tidying and tweaking, but I got tired (awwwwww!); even in its present form the article needs some attention.

Regards to all, Notreallydavid (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations

I tagged this article for lack of inline citations: [1]. Please take some time to find out why and how to make inline citations at Wikipedia:Inline citation.

Repeated insertion of this rant (later tweaked to this version) quickly resulted in a vandalism block of the contributor: [2]. Note that re-addition of this text will result in IP's getting blocked and the article being protected against anonymous users. - DVdm (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one: [3] (and a tweak). This took me less than 5 minutes. Please continue till we have sufficient inline citations to remove the tag. - DVdm (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

Most of the sections are not written in a formal encyclopedic tone. It appears that a small number of editors have been adding informally-written and poorly-sourced content for at least 10 years, despite efforts by others to clean up the article. In addition to cleaning up the tone and formatting, I think it would be appropriate to add a "Formulas" section instead of repeating the same information for each type of salute. The key to improving this article will be stopping the inappropriate edits. Dlthewave (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation

I removed a section of text in the M-80 section which was copied verbatim from the source. I also left a WP:COPYVIO warning at User_talk:Pyrogrimace. Dlthewave (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also removed content from Ashcan and Formulas which was copied from the same source by the same user. Dlthewave (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have once again removed copy-and-pasted content which was added by Pyrogrimace. Dlthewave (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General observations

I've noticed over the past number of years that this article has been utterly destroyed, in terms of scope and quality of information. The images are all gone, the dimensions on the salutes are frequently wrong (or invented, in the case of salutes that don't really exist), and useful information has simply been removed. I'll go through the revisions and note when this page peaked in quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbrevik (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here before restoring any previous version. Unfortunately most of the content had to be deleted because it was either copy-and-pasted, unsourced or not written in an encyclopedic style. That said, any effort to rebuild the article would certainly be appreciated as long as it is done in the appropriate style and in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. –dlthewave ☎ 01:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]