Talk:Match

Archives (Index)

2014 2016 2017 2020 2023

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

recent lack of sulfur dioxide smoke

All I can find these days in the store, except for older matches, are safety matches that don't seem to emit any sulfur dioxide smoke. This seems wrong to me. What happened to the matches? I'm in the US. The article does say strike-anywhere matches are not allowed on aircraft, and how does this relate to the loss of the familiar match-lighting odor? Here's an example on the market of the ones that are different and they claim to be the same. (Amazon - Diamond brand safety matches)

I haven't been able to find any sources about it on the internet - probably my fault. So this entry on the talk page is intended as a stub. Thinkadoodle (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Chinese History Mentioned in Article

The history of the match,“written” about 950, mentions a match made by imporvorished court ladies that generated a small flame about the size of an ear of corn. How is this possible when corn (maize) is only native to the western hemisphere? Richardbamberg (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It would not have been written in English, so surely an error on the part of the translator? Shyamal (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

In most of the English-speaking world outside of North America, "corn" means edible grain such as wheat or barley. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Nah. mos:commonality. Call the thing a grain or kernel if we even keep the description. — LlywelynII 10:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Locofoco

was part of 19th-century America's love of awkward to insane "latinisms" like sockdolager and had absolutely nothing to do with Spanish hey, he loco ése, however much more common that is in contemporary American speech. — LlywelynII 09:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Wow. It somehow gets worse...

The current version of the article reads (in applicable part)

Walker did not name the matches "''Congreves''" in honour of the inventor and [[Congreve rocket|rocket]] pioneer [[Sir William Congreve, 2nd Baronet|Sir William Congreve]], as it is sometimes stated. The ''congreves'' were the invention of Charles Sauria, a French chemistry student at the time.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bone|first=William A.|date=1927-04-01|title=The Centenary of the Friction Match|journal=Nature|language=en|volume=119|issue=2996|pages=495–496|doi=10.1038/119495a0|bibcode=1927Natur.119..495B |issn=1476-4687|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=White Phosphorus|url=http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webprojects2001/osullivan/white_phosphorus.htm|access-date=2021-05-15|website=www.chm.bris.ac.uk|archive-date=15 May 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210515131927/http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webprojects2001/osullivan/white_phosphorus.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref>

(a) Neither source supports what's being said here. They in fact say the exact opposite. (b) Walker never called anything a Congreve. He called his matches "friction lights". (c) The sulfur-based Congreve matches were of course named for William Congreve, although as a baronet it (theoretically) might've had something to do with patronage along with his fame with early rocketry. The source says exactly that, as does the OED. (d) This should go without saying but the original inventor has absolutely nothing to do with the etymon for the thing's English name. — LlywelynII 12:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Found a source clarifying that the Germans still remembered him for running the gas consortium that lit up Berlin in the 1820s. — LlywelynII 09:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

And then...

Another bit of the current article reads

But, the first production of friction matches in America was by [[Jacob Weller|Jacob Weller, B.S. (1775-1846)]], in 1825. He made the matches in [[Thurmont, Maryland|Thurmont, Maryland]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Thurmont History - Jacob Weller: America's first manufacture of stick matches |url=https://www.emmitsburg.net/history_t/archives/people/weller.htm |access-date=2025-10-09 |website=www.emmitsburg.net |format=PDF}}</ref>

(a) The source states that, sure, but it is obviously patent nonsense, given the friction match was invented years later on a different continent. (b) Local blogs aren't remotely reliable sources for claims of worldwide importance and wide scholarship. (c) The source itself states that the matches were on the French model (i.e. they were Chancel matches or a close variant) and the proof that their date was in 1825 was that they were (in the opinion of the blog) 'widely known' by 1832. Eh, not remotely. This isn't even worth inclusion in the article under the chemical matches section unless a better source is available. It certainly isn't worth inclusion in the friction match section. — LlywelynII 21:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion/improvement

As far as the 19th and early 20th century, there's a ton more at the Clayton source just added. — LlywelynII 10:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)