Talk:Tinder

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

This article seems to have progressed beyond a dictionary definition by including types of tinder and describing how to make a fire using tinder. --Pyrochem 01:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

factual error

The statement "Solid bars are impossible to ignite under normal conditions (and difficult even with a welding torch)" is incorrect. While solid bars can't be ignited under normal conditions, they can be ignited with a propane or welding torch.

Another possible error is the assertion that char cloth is a process of 'anhydrous pyrolysis'. 'anoxic pyrolysis' is more accurate since its the lack of atmospheric oxygen not water that allows this process to take place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.215.241 (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, Douglas-fir is not a true fir. Kortoso (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

definition of Tinder

Tinder should not be defined as "Anything that can be ignited by a match ..."

according to one expert "Tinder, not to be confused with kindling, is a substance that glows when contacted by an incendiary spark, such as that produced by striking a steel. In Nature, few substances except the tinder fungus growing on living birch trees will readily glow, although char cloth, made by burning cotton and then snuffing out the flame, is a good substitute. Kindling, on the other hand, is a substance that will ignite from the open flame of a match. "

see http://www.fieldandstream.com/quiz.jsp?quizID=10001140 and go to 5th question.

hereby notice of this change

Carlw4514 (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

I agree with Carlw4514 on this. Tinder catches sparks which turn into glowing embers.

Nowadays, some things are mistakenly considered to be tinder, but are actually kindling. You see plenty of this mistaken idea on bushcraft / survival channels on YouTube. For example, in the article, small twigs are listed as a common material used as tinder. I've started A LOT of fires in my life, by all sorts of means, but have never seen sparks take hold on small twigs.

Thibeinn (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-

Termerate

I found, and removed, these sentences "Pitchwood can be found in the temperate rainforests of the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Fir trees, especially the Douglas fir, will leave stumps in the ground when they die." Although correct, their specificity explicitly tells the reader that it is only in these forests that "pitchwood" is found. I have personally found it in every forest with conifer trees that I have camped in. That covers nineteen states, from Maine to Washington, and the entire southwest. Pitchwood is a universal feature of conifers. Nick Beeson (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename this article, and redirect its current namespace, "Tinder", to "Tinder (disambiguation)"

The article Tinder (app), which has become very popular in recent years, currently has 11 times more page views per day than this article (which has the same name). Nevertheless, typing "Tinder" directs one to this article, even though it's very unlikely the original intent. This is a bit absurd, and if anything, the namespace "Tinder" should direct to "Tinder (disambiguation)". Therefore, I propose updating the name of this article, "Tinder" into "Tinder (fire material)" - and appropriately updating any linked pages. Any opposition? Regards, Shalom11111 (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate procedure for requesting a page move is through Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Until the move gains consensus, replacing direct links with links to “Tinder (material)” is premature, and IMO inappropriate. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up the proposal on this talk page, and seeing there was no objection I changed the name. Thank you for the comments, I now proceeded to do it the formal way (see below). Shalom11111 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - Planned to oppose myself however as the nom has essentially withdrawn below it's pointless to pile on, Consensus at this time is not to move the article. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tinder → Tinder (material) – The word "Tinder" has other, notably more popular uses. This raises the need to properly adjust/rename this article, and then redirect the namespace "Tinder" to "Tinder (disambiguation). The main reason is because Tinder (app) has become very popular in recent years, and that article currently has 11 times more page views per day than this one (3,200 daily views for the former compared with roughly 280 for the latter). Nevertheless, when people type "Tinder" they're automatically referred to this article - which is about a fire material - even though it's very unlikely to be the original intent. Therefore, I propose moving this article's name to "Tinder (material) or "Tinder (fire material)", and then redirecting Tinder to the disambiguation page appropriately. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:PTOPIC: “In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance.” Tinder as a fire-starting material was around for thousands of years before the social app, and will most likely continue to be useful long after the app is forgotten. How do we balance that against more people looking for info on the app? Just now I don’t have an answer to that, but I lean strongly towards keeping the status quo. WP is not a crystal ball, and we have no way of knowing how soon the app will become a historical curiosity. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per long-term significance, and per "Apple", "Poppy", etc. Apps come and go, but tinder has lit our nights and heated our bodies since fire was tamed - a key part of one of the human race's first and highly-important high-tech advancements. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clear long-term significance of a key component of one of humanities' oldest technologies - controlled fire - over a dating app. See also Apple, Pink, Air, Fire, and so on. Egsan Bacon (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it is somewhat of a logical flaw to base your opposition on the fact that the fire material has been in the dictionary longer, or on the assumption (which I'm sure any tech-briefed person will dispute) that the Tinder app will soon be swiped away from history. I'd like to refer again to this this tool which shows how irrelevant tinder (the material) is in traffic compared to the app with the same name that people search for. While your examples of other stuff from the nature make a strong point, I argue that the fact the material is much less known and is lacking so much in popularity should be taken into account - yes, in accordance with WP guidelines on the subject. Shalom11111 (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Much less known? Consider that Tinder is an obvious play on the word match, which can also mean a romantic pairing, as used in match.com. Both items are a means of kindling fire. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The fire-starting material is clearly the primary meaning of the term; the name of the app is derived from that. Also as noted above, the long-term significance of this usage of the term outweighs the current popularity of the app. Numbers of clicks and searches are irrelevant. --Srleffler (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - long usage in ordinary life and in literature need not be changed. The recent borrowing of the name is as stated above a simple metaphor of the country music heart-like-a-flame kind, alluding to the term's long-established meaning. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I guess I'm dropping the case. Though I still think this issue should somehow be addressed, to better "balance" Wikipedia users' needs as one the users above noted. Regards, Shalom11111 (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We work by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC not WP:MOSTPOPULAR. Before renaming this one article, you'd have to change that (and then Apple et al.) Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment: Your points are right and convincing. Thanks to all of you for a constructive discussion. This will at least prevent the issue from arising again - at least in the foreseeable future. This proposal shall now be closed. Shalom11111 (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Meta reference in Slate for our egos

Just thought editors would be interested that this talk page was referenced and the above discussion linked in The Debate over Kavanaugh's Devil's Triangle article on Slate.com. The concluding graf in particular makes for warm thoughts:

"Whether it’s on-Wiki or off, we are increasingly being asked to defend basic policies and processes. Although it’s sometimes exhausting, it’s helpful to think through the underlying reasoning. To push back on so many bad faith arguments, we must know the principles and why we have them."

SamuelRiv (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]