Talk:Explosive#Reverse merge proposal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Explosive article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Explosives Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Military history: Technology / Weaponry This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Citizendium Porting (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting Occupational Safety and Health High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hey, just wanted to alert anyone with this page on the watchlist that I made two talk page comments linked below. I'm not in any WP:PROJECT that watches this page, so feel free to look at my comments and correct me. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Links: Talk:High-explosive Talk:High Explosive .

I also changed another 2 redirects that had a misspelling, but I doubt you guys need to look at them. These are them: Military explosiveMilitary explosive Primary explosivesPrimary explosives. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other explosives that come in stick form besides from dynamite and TNT. 2.26.1.236 (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for discussing improvements to the article. You can get an answer to your question at the WP:Reference Desk/Science. EEng 20:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This demo of 3 explosives is interesting. It would be much more meaningful if they were identified. There are a lot if words at https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Explosive&title=Special:MediaSearch&fulltext=search&type=video Could they be added as a note to the caption? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"a reactive substance that contains a great amount of potential energy" Relative to common chemical fuels (eg diesel) explosives do not contain a "great" amount of energy at all, they actually contain less. Their defining characteristic is that they release what energy they contain in an extremely short period of time. In physical terms, this is power, not energy. This definition would be "greatly" improved if the term "great amount of" were simply deleted. 37.152.237.108 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should redirect Explosive device to § Applications. That page is completely unsourced, contains not much salvageable information, and has been a stub for a long time. 174.138.212.166 (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a bad reason to merge two articles that belong to quite distinct domains—one in chemistry, another across materials science, engineering etc. That's the reason that article is in that shape—it's a rather broad scope to connect, not at all apt to do the opposite and collapse into a subsection of another article. In general, articles never need to be merged or deleted because they're presently in a poor state, but based on what they would be in an ideal or serviceable state. Remsense 🌈 论 23:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was told to Please re-read the opening sentences of each article more carefully. This article opens with An explosive (or explosive material) is a reactive substance that contains a great amount of potential energy that can produce an explosion if released suddenly, usually accompanied by the production of light, heat, sound, and pressure., perhaps this is what was meant by "chemistry". This article is broad: While § Chemical is chemistry, § Applications contains In materials science and engineering. The other opens with An explosive device is a device that relies on the exothermic reaction of an explosive material to provide a violent release of energy., which is also materials science and engineering. The separation here appears artificial, as Water § Human uses is in the same article as Water § Properties.

The domain of this article appears to cover that of Explosive device, which currently looks like a bad dabpage or category masquerading as an article. The extraordinary claim that they are used for riot control requires a source. If it's unacceptable to collapse into a subsection, then I have another idea: How about we move § Applications and replace Explosive device with it? That would at least solve the verifiability problems. 174.138.212.166 (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does presently, but I'm not sure it should. If Explosive device were a better developed article, it may include some of the material presently in this article. I'm not sure exactly what to do, but things can only get better. Remsense 🌈 论 00:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging § Applications into Explosive device, then {{excerpt}}ing or transcluding it into § Applications. This would resolve my sourcing concerns above and Remsense's scope concerns. 174.138.212.166 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merged 174.138.212.166 (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]