Ampoule, french version[edit]

Untitled[edit]

Bonjour, je contribue au Wikipedie en français, je signale aux utilisateurs qui seraient intéressés par le sujet des ampoules que j'ai complété la version française de cet article, mais que je n'ai pas les compétences pour le traduire dans votre langue.
si vous lisez le français, je vous invite à consulter l'article Ampoule (récipient) dans cette langue.
Yves 13:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I contribute to the French Wikipedia, I indicate to the users who would be interested in the subject of the ampoules that I completed the French version of this article, but that I have no skills to translate it in your language.
If you read French, I invite you to consult the article Ampoule (récipient) in this language.
Yves 13:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing of the ampules[edit]

In the article it says that ampules can be closed by a flame. Does any one know if there are electrical ampule-closers available commercially? 130.225.102.1 16:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only know of the closing with a gas-fueled flame. Nothing electrical. --Bisco 23:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk[reply]

Weasel words in the Blood of Saint Januarius section[edit]

I noticed the article says "It was originally believed that only martyrs were given this burial treatment, but many believe that it was a widely-practiced tradition." I think this is obvious. I'm not a big editor, so i'll wait for someone else to do it, but i'll look into what to do if nobody else does.

It's also worth noting that in the part that discusses the blood miracle, it states "when the blood in the ampoule liquifies after being placed next to the saint's relics". Whatever your religious beliefs, i think we can agree that's damn hard to verify at the least. However, i looked at the article for the blood miracle itself, and it says that the blood liquefies due to prayers from the faithful. I really don't think that belongs on wikipedia (notice one of the sources is the Catholic Encyclopedia), but I don't think i'm ready to start a ruckus over that just yet. But if somebody reads this who knows more about wikipedia authorship than I, please look into it. - -Indalcecio (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No qualms about the "originally believed..." point. (But a reliable source of blood ampoules being buried with non-martyrs would help strengthen it.) As for the blood of St. Januarious liquefying or not: even the skeptics agree that it does liquefy, and that the phenomenon takes place in public, before TV cameras, scientists, and all that. As for the cause: last time I edited the Saint Januarius article, the text carefully avoided (as even the Catholic Church does!) to assert any supernatural explanation, and gave spac for various other hypotheses. If that article now says that it is due to the prayers, it must be fixed. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have edited the section to remove some of the POV wordings. By the way, the affirmation that "the blood allegedly belongs to the saint" is made by many sources (see the linked-to article), so the allegation a verifiabe fact. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Awesome, anyone know where one could find a source for the "many believe that it was a widely-practiced tradition"? If not I think I'll take it out/change it but (I'm assuming by 'no qualms' you mean that you have no qualms about taking out the "many believe" part?) I'd rather not just take it out if there really are legit sources now saying it was widespread. 68.114.255.140 (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (I forgot to log in, and messed up the formatting, so here goes: -Indalcecio (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  - Also, i looked at the blood miracle article again, and it says "After intense prayers by the faithful --- including the so-called "relatives of Saint Januarius" (parenti di San Gennaro), the content of the larger vial typically liquefies", so no, it doesn't say BECAUSE of the prayers, and probably never did say that, so i was wrong about that. (i know we should probably talk about this ON that article's talk page, but it's already here). however, while it doesn't QUITE imply prayer to be the cause, it seems to sort of gesture towards it. again, though, i'm not big on editing wikipedia, and to be blunt, i'm not touching this one with a ten foot pole. Oh, and one more thing, i could be wrong, but shouldn't it be contents/liquefy instead of content/liquefies? I suppose liquid could be treated as content or contents, though. I'll bring that up on the other talk page. -Indalcecio (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pronounciation?[edit]

Ampoule, I always thought it was spelled 'ampule', and I pronounced it (en) "am-pew-l". Maybe that's right, but this spelling suggests it's pronounced "am-pool" or "am-pole" or even "am-powell". How do you say it? OsamaBinLogin (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AM-pool or AMP-you-'ll ('ampule' or "am-pew-l" just as you said) are both correct, if you haven't learned it from somewhere else by now which I'm sure you have. Personally I've never heard anyone say am-pole or am-powell or really anything like that. I'm not a doctor but I have experience working in hospitals and I've heard the word used quite a few times. TBH I've only ever heard 'ampule' used in speech, but I'm told there isn't anything wrong with am-pool. Funny word, isn't it? BTW if anyone notices I edited this section a bunch it's because I totally forgot to use preview, totally forgot how to indent a reply, and my reply kept showing up as a code box, until I figured it out. -Indalcecio (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saved? from whom? by whom? what saved?[edit]

Sainte Ampoule An order of knights named after the ampoule was created for the coronation of kings to have been saved and was used in coronation of Charles X. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Value of ampules[edit]

The passage "Glass ampoules are more expensive than bottles and other simple containers, but there are many situations where their superior imperviousness to gases and liquids and all-glass interior surface are worth the extra cost" is a strange value judgment with no references. Worth the cost to whom? 198.108.159.63 (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]