Talk:Combustibility and flammability

message: This article used to be called Inflammability. The article and the talk page were moved to Flammability and then edited further.--Achim 18:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is NOT a good article. It is a paragraph article about a broad topic. It requires expansion, citation, good photos, and better organization (not really applicable for a 1 paragraph article). Do not nominate articles as bad as this as Good Articles. It wastes the reviewers time and delays the evaluation of pages that people spent a lot time working on. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I have no idea why anyone would consider this a good article.
Just another sign of the dumbing down of America.  So we can no longer say "inflammable" because people get confused?   Great! Let us cater to the ignorant; it will only serve to strengthen America!!
Wholeheartedly I concur. The article says nothing about what influences flammibilty, etc. It is incomplete and pratically useless. It needs to be finished.
It has outright errors all through it, and nowhere does it actually talk about flammability. As in, compared to combustability, or what does it actually mean to say a substance is "flammable" (it's a lot more involved than 'does it burn'). 69.145.252.174 (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor Article

message: The last sentence says "...should use inflammable" shouldn't that say "flammable" ?  The sentence doesn't make sense otherwise. --Royalflight 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last quote on page 

message: What is the most flammable gas?
What is the most flammable liquid?
Pikazilla (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Most flammable

message: I was really hoping to learn more about flammbility from this article.  Are there ratings to flammability?  Is there a scale?  How is it tested and applied?  Are there different terms for substances/items that will only burn when a flame is applied, contrasted with substances/items that will sustain a flame?  If anyone can answer these questions, please edit the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.188.29 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flammability ratings?

message: Actually i do not know much about that but it can be a step leading towards keeping people be able to search through topics quickly and easily which seem to be relative. Though they are not actually the same like loudness and pitch too but now that is what Wikipedia is meant for enlightening people.
And actually the difference between the two topics must be represented on the same page which must be given a different name or must be redirected to from the two articles Mr. Bell and everyone else taking part in this discussion is no doubt right to some extent. But at least I feel that these must be merged together so that people make full use of Wikipedia and all these points should be written on the page. (unsigned)
* All you need to do is add links to the other article. As the opposing opinions state, and you admit, they are different subjects, so merging them would be inappropriate. 74.102.162.119 (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: A Section Should be added clarifying Flammable vs. Combustible  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeWi (talk • contribs) 23:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flammable vs. Combustible 

message: In addition to the definition of "will smoulder or flame when heated" vs. "will flame when heated" mentioned in the previous merge discussion, and the solid/liquid/gas distinction, there are also the definitions based on flashpoint in the U.S. and Canada (,  and have changed over time - ).  These vary, but for example "combustible" might refer to any liquid with a flashpoint above 100°F, and "flammable" to any liquid with a flashpoint between 20°F and 100°F.
I think it would be easier to explain the differences between the various definitions and measurement techniques in a single article, called something like Combustibility and flammability.  In several areas there is significant overlap, in addition to the fact that the distinction between the two is in some cases merely a matter of degree.  In the cases where there is a qualitative difference, we might as well explain the distinction once rather than twice. -- Beland (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I think one of these definitions controls labeling of consumer goods.  If you look at solvents at the hardware store, you'll see "FLAMMABLE" and "COMBUSTIBLE", and e.g. Boston has ordinances that says how much of each can be stored in various types of buildings. This would be very useful to add to the combined article. -- Beland (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Support merge to a new joint article such as Combustibility and flammability on the grounds that they significantly overlap and are best distinguished and discussed on the same page. Klbrain (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flammability and combustibility merge 

message: The prefix "in" originally meant to be, in, as in inflammable is the same as flammable. So why, now does insane apparently mean not sane, when really, technically insane should mean the same as sane. This country is backwards. We need to redefine not being sane as unsane. Governmentconspiracy101 (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: the "in-" in "inflammable" and "in-" in "insane" are two seperate, unrelated prefixes. Ioe bidome (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I also fail to see how this proves America specifically as illiterate and not the English-speaking world as a whole, who use the exact same word. --Ioe bidome (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  America is illiterate 

message: — Assignment last updated by UCIHGrad18 (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Industrial Hygiene and Ergonomics- Graduate Student Projects