Talk:Tinder

message: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: And of course, Douglas-fir is not a true fir. Kortoso (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  factual error 

message: 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)
thread_title:  definition of Tinder 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Termerate 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to rename this article, and redirect its current namespace, "Tinder", to "[[Tinder (disambiguation)]]" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Meta reference in Slate for our egos