Talk:Smoke bomb

message: I noticed that someone had deleted the paragraph on how to make a 'homemade smokebomb'. I have rewritten the formula for it but left out how to mix the ingredients. I am hoping it is now acceptable.     PyroTom 05:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring how to

message: Why does this article contain any kind of formula for making napalm? Although the warning makes it slightly more acceptable, it is phenomenally stupid to include this kind of information, much less encourage the using it to create such an extremely dangerous substance!
--superscienceman 21:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naplam?!?! 

message: Hi I want to do a re-edit in which potassium nitrate and sugar are not melted together, because this is a very dangerous step, and it works just as well to mix it with water and just let it evaporate for a day or two.  It can also be made with Paraffin to consolidate it. 
I just wanted to let you know in advance of the edit. Chem teacher (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other recipes

message: For whoever edited the information about the "Legendary Smokebomb" - The compositions you linked to vary both in ratios and the process to make it. it is not the same kind of smokebomb.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.241.142 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Legendary Smokebomb

message: Do not try this at home failure includes destruction of surrounding area. In most states this is illeigal to make injury is assured if failure takes placeDO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.141.99 (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risk 

message: Which is not cited, considering the book came out in 2016 and the fact was added around 2009 (Citation notification was added in 2013) I'm just curious as to the rules as using the book as a citation to something that it most likely copied itself from the article, as it is almost word for word and certainly came out after the article, and if this is the case (I'm not aware) Is this a common thing to happen with Wikipedia articles? Book in question is called "The Mad Scientist teaches: Chemistry: 50 Fun science experiments for grades 1 to 8" thanks. PanzerFauster (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think a book cited the fact about Robert Yale... 

message: This page comes nowhere near to meeting the criteria of an acceptable Wikipedia page, and as it stands does more harm than good to the Project. Its purpose and scope are unclear. It has NO relevant external references.  (It was first flagged ten years ago, yet still lacks them.)  The history section is dubious at best, and the author seems to see no need for ext refs. The scope seems focused on a few prank uses (possibly dangerous), while their military and leak detection uses are not discussed at all.
I have little knowledge of the subject, do not know how such changes should be made, and have no time or interest in addressing this further.  But I do think it important to do so because, as it stands, it does a disservice to Wikipedia's reputation .
Jimmy Hers (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 100% this article is just a worse smoke grenade, it is shoddily written and not sourced, I suggest it be deleted, and a sektion on smoke bombs be added to smoke grenades Realfakebezalbob (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: rewrite or delete