Talk:Fuze

attribution (DO NOT ARCHIVE)

On 6 December 2009, this article was created by (apparently) copy-and-paste from fuse (explosives), specifically this version. PLEASE DO NOT ARCHIVE THIS SECTION — leave it here to satisfy the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA. (I hope this is sufficient — I think it really should have gone into the edit summary when the copy was performed, but it wasn't, so I'm leaving this note instead.) --Trovatore (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Reverted ealier move: yesterday's move of Fuze to Fuze (munitions) is apparently contested, so speedy return. JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Fuze (munitions) → Fuze — I agree with separating this out from fuse (explosives). But now it seems silly for fuze to point here as a redirect, rather than just having the article at fuze. --Trovatore (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• update When I made this nomination, fuze was a redirect to fuze (munitions). User:Rcbutcher has now retargeted it to fuze (disambiguation). This obviously does not work — foo can never be a redirect to foo (disambiguation), nor for that matter to foo (anything else) — either the primary meaning, or else the disambiguation page, must be at foo. In my opinion, the munitions meaning clearly meets the standard of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and therefore fuze (munitions) should be moved to fuze. But the other option is to move fuze (disambiguation) to fuze; the current situation is not acceptable. --Trovatore (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Leave as is "Fuze" is a loosely-defined word : it is both an alternative spelling of fuse (which itself has multiple meanings), and its use in some English-speaking countries (e.g. UK, USA, Australia) to denote only complex detonators for military munitions such as shells is not universally accepted or even understood. Least-worst recommendation : redirect Fuze (disambiguation) to Fuze, which can carry the disambiguation text. Moving Fuze (munitions) to Fuze would nullify the whole point of creating this article with its specific name, and lay it open to being updated with whatever anybody happens to think constitutes a fuze, which was what was happening before. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • comment You can't leave it as is. It never makes sense to redirect a term to a disambiguated form for the same term, nor for a disambiguation page for the same term. The current redirect fuze absolutely has to be deleted, and something moved on top of it. The only question is whether fuze (munitions) should be moved on top of it, or fuze (disambiguation). As I've stated, I prefer the first; you evidently prefer the second.
  • As for your other point — that's not really the history. The history is that the material used to be merged inside fuse (explosives); you correctly separated it out. There has never (or, at least, not recently) been an article called fuze that treated this material specifically. --Trovatore (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • By "leave as is" I'm referring to this article - I don't think it should be moved to Fuze. I would recommend moving Fuze (disambiguation) to Fuze. That appears to fit within guidelines and allows "Fuze" to be correctly presented as a term with multiple possible meanings. I'll bow out of this now. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Most people outside the Armed Forces call it a fuse. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • No, not the complicated devices (as opposed to the burning string), they don't. They might not call them fuzes, preferring to call them detonators or something. But if they call them fuses, that's just a mistake, I'd say. --Trovatore (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Concur with this article title

The term fuse was used for military munitions through the 19th century. American preference for the term fuze appears to date from the early 20th century as the advantages of mechanical activation became apparent for newer, more stable explosives used in military munitions. The old powder-train time fuse remained for inexpensive gunpowder munitions, but the mechanical clockwork time fuze offered more precise timing of detonation under varying conditions of temperature and humidity. The 1921 United States Naval Academy textbook used fuse in the text, but fuze in illustrations of the same subject. The 1941 textbook The Chemistry of Powder & Explosives by Davis described fuse as a device for communicating fire, and fuze as a device for initiating high-explosive munitions. Hemphill's 1981 civil engineering text Blasting Operations used the term fuse exclusively, despite the sophisticated delay methods employed in modern mining and demolition practice.

I believe this article holds appropriate precedence for the title fuze, but relevant disambiguation pages are unnecessarily dissociated. The redirect Fuze for ammunition is particularly confusing. I suggest a single disambiguation page for Fuse might be a preferable means of explaining both the spelling difference and the (explosives), (electronic), and (munitions) variants as well as the acronyms and trademarks.Thewellman (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This ongoing debate about whether fuse or fuze is the "correct" spelling misses the whole point, which is to draw a distinction between fuse as in a circuit breaker, fuse as in a simple timer to detonate an explosive charge, and sophisticated devices to active military munitions such as shells, bombs, landmines. The word "fuse" or "fuze' by itseld really means nothing, and is of no use as an article title other than as a disambiguation page. We really need separate articles for each of the various clearly-defined meanings of fuze/fuse, which is what I tried to do by creating Fuze (munitions). Fuse (munitions) would cover precisely the same topic. The moderator who insisteds on moving Fuze (munitions) to Fuze completely failed to grasp this point. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As I read it, that was simply a reversion to the status quo ante, pending consensus for a move, on the grounds that the previous move was not uncontroversial. You're perfectly free to start a requested-move discussion.

But I'm still against it. Fuze has a clear primary meaning, and it's this one. The alternative meanings are things like a soft drink and a software package music player — I don't think those really rise to the level of needing fuze to be a disambig page. The various meanings of fuse really have nothing to do with this discussion — that term does indeed have various widespread meanings, but it's a different word, so I don't see the problem. --Trovatore (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So where do you people think the word "fuze" comes from? It is the American version of the British word "fuse" pure and simple. The sheer fact that "fuzes" hold American patents means just that they were developed in the United States, and would therefore have an American spelling. Similar patents developed in the UK, Australia, India, etc. would be spelt "fuse", other than in U.S. manuals for the use of American Forces personnel. Has nobody ever looked this up? The word "fuze" is not an independent invention totally separate from "fuse". The sheer difference between some patents doesn't necessitate a different spelling. It is just a matter of historical difference, that is all. I think there should be just one article entitled "Fuze/fuse" or "Fuse/fuze". Well, even Wikipedia underlines "fuze" in red, and leaves "fuse" un-underlined when you first edit it. So obviously it doesn't think "fuze" is spelt right either. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"It is the American version of the British word "fuse" pure and simple."

No, far from it. It's the appropriate term for military fuzing, either side of the pond. If you want refs, I (and almost everyone else) has a bookcase full, and mine at least go back to the 19th with "fuze". Andy Dingley (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And where does the word "fuzing" come from? You are not reading what I said. Of course, it will be spelt "fuzing" if it describes an object which was probably patented in the U.S. That is what I said above. It would be spelt so in manuals for forces other than U.S. I am mainly talking about the historical derivation of "fuze". When did "fuze" first make its appearance in history, what did it mean then, did it ever mean the same as "fuse". My English dictionaries all state "fuze" is the American spelling of "fuse", and all the American ones give it as an alternative spelling. To have two separate articles for "fuze" and "fuse" seems a little specious. Dieter Simon (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

They are different things. A piece of cord that burns is a fuse. A complicated electronic detonator is a fuze. These have very little in common, and there's no reason to treat them in the same article or to call them by the same name. --Trovatore (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fine, but where does the word come from? Has it been invented, and if so, who invented it. What was the purpose of naming it in such a way that it can be associated by sound with the other "fuse". Where was the first time that anyone came across it. Surely it didn't just surface, did it? It certainly needs an answer. Dieter Simon (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This haggling over so-called correct spelling and meaning of the word fuse or fuze was what I wanted to prevent when I created the separate Fuze (munitions) page. It could just as easily be Fuse (munitions), the spelling is irrelevant here. The mod Trovatore insisted on move the page to Fuze as he thought that was the standard spelling, and so here we are again debating spelling. I am going to move this article back to Fuze (munitions) and re-establish Fuze as a disambiguation page where folks can debate spelling to their heart's content. Wiki articles are not the place for analysis of word etymology, that should be done at Wiktionary. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The archaic spellings (fuse, feuze, fuze, fuzze) date back to the mid-17th century and the first uses of explosive ammunition. They refer to a straw or quill filled with powder, as an alternative to loose powder trains or smouldering match for firing mines and grenades. There is no obvious way to identify the first uses of these, although the OED gives their origin as being from fuso, Latin for a spindle. At this time, s & z were widely interchanged and lack of written dictionaries didn't remedy that.

The military use of fuze as a preference dates from at least the mid-19th century (Crimea period), the use of explosive shells and the increased codification of military practice through written manuals. In English practice, fuze is universal at this time. No doubt there's also some naval history from the 18th, but that's not something I'm familiar with. Clock-train fuzes post-date this, so have always adopted the fuze spelling. There is no evidence for the theory, sometimes claimed, that a clock-train fuze derives from fuzee and is distinctly mechanical. Firstly fusee is the more common there, secondly fusees had no influence on clock train fuzes, and laughably so.

There seems to be no significant US/UK difference. Talk to an ATO about "fuses" and you'll hopefully just be mistaken for a sparkie, otherwise an Artists' Rifles wannabee. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

PS - A "piece of cord that burns" isn't a fuse, it's a match. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit confusing, when you're talking about the burning cord on, say, a firecracker. I mean, I light that with a match. I light a match with a match? No, I light a fuse with a match. That's the ordinary usage, anyway. But a ballistic missile, clearly, has a fuze and not a fuse. --Trovatore (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A 'match' was a piece of burning cord used to touch-off the gunpowder in the old muzzle-loading cannons of the 17th century prior to the introduction of the flintlock - see matchlock. The common safety match we use today got its name from this earlier term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The redirect is not acceptable

Having fuze redirect to fuze (disambiguation) is completely unacceptable. A term never redirects to a disambig for the same term. It would be possible, though I disagree, for fuze itself to be the disambig page, but this situation is not.

Rcbutcher's move was clearly out of process, given that the move was done before and contested, and there has been no move discussion. I am going to request that it be moved back, pending such a discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You can redirect Fuze (disambiguation) to Fuze if you want. But this article needs to remain as Fuze (munitions). It was you who moved it to Fuze, on the spurious assumption that Fuze "meant" a munition fuze. That is far from universally accepted, both currently and historically. Fuze is also just an alternative spelling of Fuse. This article is about one particular species of Fuze/Fuse... separate pages for Fuze and Fuse should carry the other semantic baggage associated with the words. Rcbutcher (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You say it's far from universally accepted that fuze means a munition fuze. OK, what else do you propose that it means, that's of comparable importance? --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A word with any particular spelling doesn't "mean" anything in absolute terms. If some people use a word to refer to certain class of objects, then it may become associated with the objects for them : they may believe that the word "means" the object. Fuze/Fuse/Fusee whatever has no intrinsic meaning or meaning of "importance". It is such a flexible term that in Wikipedia terms it can really only be used in terms of a disambiguation page listing its more specific agreed meanings. Any attempt to force it to mean a particular thing in itself is inaccurate and misleading. Rcbutcher (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please quit bringing in the term fuse; it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. What else do you propose that fuze means? If fuze-with-a-z has an overwhelmingly primary meaning in an encyclopedic context, then there is no need for a disambiguating term when discussing that meaning. The fact that there's a similar word sometimes interchanged with it has no bearing on that point.

So again, you assert that it's "far from universally accepted" that fuze refers to munitions. What else, then, of comparable encyclopedic notability? --Trovatore (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A possible way out

The idea of having fuze be a disambig page frankly doesn't make sense, because the other meanings of fuze are not nearly as notable (a soft drink, a digital media player, a rapper, a smartphone). I hope it's clear that meanings of fuse with an s are utterly irrelevant to this question — when considering whether a term needs to be disambiguated, the only thing that matters are meanings of that exact term, not similarly spelled ones.

However, there's perhaps another way out. Fuze (munitions) is mostly redundant with detonator. We could merge them, with the merged article to live at detonator. Then fuze would redirect to detonator, with a {{redirect}} hatnote at detonator. (It would say

Fuze redirects here. For other uses, see fuze (disabiguation).

) Perhaps just not having the page called fuze-with-a-z might placate those who want to use fuse-with-an-s for detonators, and we would maintain the important point that a search term with an overwhelmingly primary meaning, like fuze, should go directly to that meaning and not to a dab page. --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of this article's name is that it is about devices to detonate or activate military devices other than simple explosives. It is possibly a subset of detonator but not synonymous with it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with blasting, railway detonators, pencil detonators, matches... the spelling of fuse or fuze is irrelevant, what is relevant is the TOPIC . Rcbutcher (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I share the view that detonators and fuzes are different enough to require separate articles. The majority of dictionary definitions provided below suggest a single fuse disambibuation page for both spellings would be appropriate (possibly with a note at the top of this article referring back to that disambiguation page.Thewellman (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That disambig page already exists; it's at fuse, which is appropriate because the burning-cord meaning and the melting-metal-circuit-breaker meaning are of comparable encyclopedic importance. --Trovatore (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel responsible for causing this debate in first place, and am sorry. However, I am trying to look at this from the point of view of the ordinary reader who is consulting Wikipedia to find out about "fuse" and then comes across the word "fuze", which seems an entirely different word from "fuse". He finds enumerated a number of devices with compound names "...fuze". The trouble is, he/she has now looked up umpteen American dictionaries which state the following definitions under "fuze":

• Encarta which says "Another spelling of fuse"
• Yahoo! "Variant of fuse"
• Merriam Webster "Variant of Fuse"
• Infoplease the only one which goes into the definition similar to the one you gave under "Fuze" but in the same breath goes on to say "fuse"(def.1) and "definition 1" is "a mechanical or electronic device to detonate an explosive charge, esp. as contained in an artillery shell, a missile, projectile, or the like".

What I should have asked for is to reconcile the two words in either one article discussing the two spellings, or even two articles, one "fuse" and one "fuze", and reconcile one with the other in the other article. I never asked for disambiguations or mergers of any kind. I don't know enough about the various meanings, so am at one with the ignorant reader who is trying to understand here. We are not after peer reviews of people who are totally expert on these matters. It is what I was trying to query in my origin edit. Perhaps I should have made it clearer, and I am sorry. However, I hope you can see that it is not at all clear to the man in the street (or as we say in the UK the man on the Clapham omnibus).

Please give us all a chance, as until now I as a Brit had never even heard of "fuze", I thought someone was having us on. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't that simple. There is/was no single thing called a fuse, nor is there another single thing called a fuze. There have been many different things called fuzes and/or fuses, and there has never been any rule that says which is the "correct" spelling for a particular meaning. In general, a fuse/fuze burns or goes bang - it ignites. The reality is that in English z and s are the same, and it is artificial to say that fuse is one thing and fuze is a different thing. There are electrical fuses, artillery fuzes, mine fuzes, grenade fuses, explosive fuses - but it bisn't the s or z that defines what type it is, it's the word in front. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And how do you propose that the title fuze (munitions) addresses that problem at all?

I think you're still missing the point here. Parenthetical disambiguations, like (munitions) have only one purpose, and that is to aid the reader in navigation. That's it. They are not there to tell anyone anything at all about the topic.

So the only reason to have an article called fuze (munitions) is if you think that otherwise, people will type fuze into the search box, or link the term fuze from another article, and then be surprised where they end up, or where it points.

I think that scenario is unlikely. No doubt it will happen occasionally, because of typos or bad spelling. Hatnotes are sufficient to deal with those issues. --Trovatore (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I used the name Fuze (munitions) when I started this article after careful consideration. It accurately defines the scope of the article in terms of the device's usage : fuzes used with (military) munitions; it separates itself from possibly well-meant but out-of-place contributions from people who have their own concept of what fuze means; it replaces the (faulty) use of s or z to differentiate the type of device we are talking about with an explicit identifier : munitions. Your statement that parenthetical disambiguations are not there to tell anyone anything about the topic is just plain silly. There are thousands of Wikipedia articles using this method e.g.... (World War I) and ...(World War II)). I didn't call it "Munitions fuze" because that is not a commonly used term, whereas "Fuze as used in munitions" which is what the parenthetical disambiguation tells any thinking person, is both an aid to searching and an accurate description of the article. Fuze definitely isn't. If you want a single page that discusses the so-called "meaning" of a single word you are really talking about a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia deals with specific objects, with clearly-defined concepts, not words. The object is the subject of the article, the words and names used are incidental. A dictionary is the opposite - the focus is on the words and names used. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course encyclopedia articles are not about the meanings of words, specifically. That's not the point. Parenthetical disambiguators are only to help people get to (and link) the right article. That's it, period. If you think otherwise you're just wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not the point what the difference is between an encyclopaedia and and a dictionary. The point is how laypeople view what the difference is between a "fuze" and "fuse". What I described above was how laypeople might be led to our pages after seeing what I described in the various dictionaries. And any dictionaries state "fuze" is an American variant spelling. Please read what I am saying, not yet another discussion of the difference between one type of "fuze" and another type of "fuze". What is important is why a "fuze" is spelt so when in fact I am sure I have seen it spelt "artillery fuse" and "aerial bomb fuse", and am sure it is the U.S. variant spelling which is being used here. But that must be brought out in the articles, otherwise both articles are going to be misleading. And I am also sure there is no problem in explaining that in both articles and reconciling the the two spellings, otherwise people will wonder. It is the laypeople who need to be told, not your fellow experts in the field. They don't need Wikipedia, they already know, it is the people who don't know. I am sure the word "fuze" should be interpreted to people who don't use, repeat don't use American spelling. That is what Wikipedia is all about, not the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopaedia.Dieter Simon (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to give you a flavour of what I am talking, just try to go into any of the search engines and try "artillery fuse", "hand grenade fuse", "aerial bomb fuse", etc., and use the quotes, you get no end of articles, some of them about patents, all spelt "fuse". You really have consider and reflect this in the article. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"And any dictionaries state "fuze" is an American variant spelling."

Which dictionaries would they be, and are they credible? I have quite a few dictionaries here: for any variant spelling or etymology you might like, I can probably find "a dictionary" that supports it. The OED does not claim fuze to be an Americanism.

As a quick experiment, I grabbed a book off the shelves of British army issue handbooks. "Field Engineering and Mine Warfare", pamphlet 4, "Mines-Individual Mechanisms" was issued in 1961 and has addenda up to the late '70s. It uses "fuze" throughout. A 1903 artillery manual uses "fuze". An American demolitions handbook of the '80s use "cap" and "detonator" quite frequently but neither fuze nor fuze. Another US mines handbook uses fuze, but then so does the British handbook covering the same US AT mine. I can find no credible English-language military-issued handbook of the 20th century that uses "fuse", from either side of the pond. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Three in my possession: Collins English Dictionary, Longman Dictionary of the English Language and Chambers Dictionary (this one says "see fuse"). You haven't read what I said above about the well-known American dictionaries, so I'll repeat it:

• Encarta which says "Another spelling of fuse"
• Yahoo! (the dictionary) "Variant of fuse"
• Merriam Webster "Variant of Fuse"
• Infoplease the only one which goes into the definition similar to the one you gave under "Fuze" but in the same breath goes on to say "fuse"(def.1) and "definition 1" is "a mechanical or electronic device to detonate an explosive charge, esp. as contained in an artillery shell, a missile, projectile, or the like".

Again you are not reading what I said about the many search engine entries I mentioned above, some of which are discussing patents, all spelt "fuse" (artillery fuse, hand grenade fuse, aerial bomb fuse, etc., etc.) As for the British handbook you mentioned, yes it would probably use the American spelling "fuze" as it is about an American "fuze", why shouldn't it?

Look, all I am asking is that these different spellings should be reflected in the articles "fuse" and "fuze", so that people don't get confused (or should I say con-fused?). All it needs is something to the effect that it is also spelt "fuse" in the article "fuze", and "fuze" in the "fuse" article, possibly. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

See, the thing is, everyone else thinks you're just wrong about the "American" thing. You have not found dictionaries claiming that fuze is an American spelling of fuse, which is good, because it isn't. What you have found is different; American dictionaries claiming that fuze is a variant spelling of fuse. --Trovatore (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It really isn't a question of being right or wrong. All I was saying was, that it should be reflected in the article "Fuze" that this is the American spelling and that in certain English-speaking countries it is spelt "fuse". Just a full sentence to that effect will do. The rest would remain as it is. You see you haven't read anything I said in my previous edit, you just think I just want to be right, no I am a Wikipedian first and foremost, I want the article to show how Americans as well as the rest of the world spell. My point as described above was that all you need to do is check with the search engines and see what they show. Google show 37,800 for "hand grenade fuse" (using quotes in each case) but only 20,800 for "hand grenade fuze". Are you saying the majority of the rest of the world are barking up the wrong tree? I really think you should read my previous couple of edits. Dieter Simon (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It just flat isn't "the American spelling", so of course we should not say that.

Yes, a sentence that the word, even when referring to complicated mechanical/electronic detonators, is sometimes spelled fuse, would be appropriate. But without the "American" stuff. --Trovatore (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, have done. I hope this has now been satisfactorily resolved. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

I have added a direct link to this article from the fuse disambiguation page, and clarified the difference from Fuse (explosives). If this is satisfactory, I suggest merging the present fuze disambiguation page into the fuse page and replacing it with a redirect.Thewellman (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If that is satisfactory (and I have no issue with it), the two disambiguation pages should remain separate. Their overlap is not the majority of either list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

EP Fuze

Can anyone offer an explanation of what the acronym EP Fuze means. It's commonly found in archived official documents that refer mainly, but not exclusively, to two British nuclear air-dropped bombs, Red Beard and Yellow Sun. It was activated from the aircraft cockpit, and may be related to pre-release charging from aircraft electrical power of the bomb capacitors required to detonate the weapon. 86.160.118.150 (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

PS. Activation of thermal batteries can be discounted. Neither of these two weapons used them. 86.160.118.150 (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Total wild guess here. Energy Pulse? ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Fuse vs Fuse

Oxford American Dictionary lists it as:

fuze |fyoōz| - noun - variant spelling of fuse 2 .

the main entry is under fuse.

Check more quality dictionaries.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed!

Wikipedia spelling, grammar and English usage are too often of a appalling standard 2A00:23EE:1060:4F5:E34E:3635:D830:3749 (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/ammunition/junghans/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Fuze vs Fuse (quick version)

Per my checking of sources for the lede...and tagging [1] "ridiculous - sentence explicitly tries to prove "Most English" but cites only US centric refs largely from one source proving nothing with 6 refs-> citation needed - prove it or lose it! Looks like US spell variant centric to me (and wikt)". Whatever the etymology is, is a separate question to my point - if the lede wants to prove "fuze" is used in "Most" languages then WP:OR / WP:SYN will not do - either a secondary source or some backing for the claim rather than largely from a single source 6x. Patents are not RS as well. Widefox; talk 11:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

In the whole discussion above, there were several people who seemed to think that fuze was somehow "American", but no one came up with any substantial support for that idea. No one found, for example, a dictionary that reported fuze as an Americanism. Andy Dingley, who is British and appears knowledgeable about military topics, reports that fuze is used in British works. Why do you think fuze is American, and can you support the claim? --Trovatore (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This pointless Wikilawyering just won't die.

FUZE is the accepted professional term used throughout the English-speaking world's military forces for the mechanical, pyrotechnic, electronic, etc, devices which initiate a piece of ordnance upon impact, proximity, time delay or arrival at a desired location: GPS coordinates, depth, elevation, etc. This has been the case since at least the early 1900s.

A FUSE, in the ordnance world, is something quite separate. A simple pyrotechnic delay train. In layman's terms, the piece of chemically-enhanced string that Wiley Coyote lights to set off the dynamite to kill himself a roadrunner dinner.

It has NOTHING to do with "American English" versus "British English." And most assuredly, citing general purpose dictionaries that claim one or the other spelling is a regional variant will not do. Those are NOT RS for a specific technical meaning such as this.

Even the UK War Office says it's FUZE, and has done so since 1915: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_BL_12-pounder_6_cwt#mediaviewer/File:No56FuzeMkIVC.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.103.190 (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Am I correct that the ugly banner tags "original research" and "US-centric" was placed on the top of the article just because of the title, which is in turn about everything worth discussing about the topic, judging by the contents of this talk page? This whole business is worth an entry on WP:LAME. As a complete outsider, I'm happy to know that the title appears to conform to the specialist usage, according to e.g. http://the-difference-between.com/fuse/fuze.
I will concede one thing, however: the whole lead fails WP:LEAD and does not summarize the article contents, therefore a {{Lead too short}} applies (I won't, as I hate drive-by tagging, maybe I'll fix it myself). Furthermore, the long string of references in the lead is really ugly and apparently proves a point. I suggest creating a "terminology" section to deal with the issue, and just summarize it one sentence in the lead.
Disclaimer: I came here attracted by the continuation of lame dispute at ANI. No such user (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Another useful source:

"Glossary Of Terms And Definitions Concerning The Safety And Suitability For Service Of Munitions, Explosives And Related Products" (PDF) (3rd ed.). NATO. April 2002. pp. 85–87. AOP-38.

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Interesting:

From the specifically aforementioned version "As can be seen from the various accompanying diagrams, most countries use the 'z' spelling" is now somewhat immortalized by having been used to Greek a computer display for Iron Man at 23:34 to 23:36 in Iron Man & Captain America: Heroes United. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tearaway (talk • contribs) 03:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Spelling (again) at Plasticine

More eyes would be useful there. See Talk:Plasticine#Spelling of Fuse Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I've come here from the Plasticine discussion. I won't repeat everything I've said there about UK dictionaries not listing "fuze" as a valid British spelling, but I have a specific comment about this article. I notice that a recent edit removed all mention of "fuse" as even a valid alternative spelling for this item. @Pogorrhœa: Was that your intention? Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't get stuck on spelling. Both z and s are equally valid historically. What matters is the article content and that we make clear we are talking about a munition fuse/fuze or an explosive fuse. Spelling means NOTHING. I suggested years ago that this article be renamed fuze (munition), with a redirect of fuse (munition) but was howled down by the masses who insisted that z was the only munition actuation device. I suggest this rename again. {Rcbutcher (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree Fuse (munitions) is a valid variant of Fuze (munitions), so I have created it. Burninthruthesky (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that "fuse", in a munitions context, means a piece of burning cord, not a more complicated detonator. Rcbutcher is incorrect on this point; this is in fact distinguished by spelling. --Trovatore (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If you study military history rather than dictionaries you will find many reputable manuals and narratives which use fuse as the spelling for the things that make shells etc go bang. While s has always been the minority spelling, and certainly today it is very rare, it has been used often enough to make it a valid alternative spelling... by your logic, publications that used s were talking about dynamite igniters rather than artillery shell actuators, which is absurd. So to reiterate : z is the dominant spelling, s has been an alternative spelling, neither spelling "means" specifically either type of actuator only. Far more productive to use unambiguous terms such as artillery fuze. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"many reputable manuals ... which use fuse"

Such as?

Examples : "Text-book of Ordnance and Gunnery". Annapolis., United States Naval Institute, 1905. "Ordnance and Gunnery". Lt-Col Ormond Lissak. Text book for West Point cadets. 1907. I can't be bothered digging up all the others. Yes, these are a while back, but they illustrate the point that up to a certain time s was frequently used. This article needs to represent the historical reality, in which artillery fuses/fuzes go back two hundred years, not just the current reality. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The military TMs etc. have already been cited. They're using fuze. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have cited dictionary entries for the specific technical meaning described in the article, spelled "fuse", and giving "fuze" as a US alternate spelling. I notice at Talk:Fuse (explosives)#Spelling there is a useful quotation from Hogg, in which he argues that "fuse" is an incorrect spelling for any artillery usage, which I read as applying equally to Fuse (explosives) and Fuse (munitions). The dictionary cites I just added mention the same derivations, but do not support his conclusion on spelling. The SOED lists "fuze" as a US variant of "fuse", for the explosion timing devices (both cord and other devices are described together in the same definition), but uses only "fuse" for the other senses (e.g. electrical fuse). It seems there is real-world disagreement about this. We should report the disagreement, not take part in it. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, the online Collins American English Dictionary entry for fuse describes the burning variety, with a link to fuze (the device); and vice versa at fuze. This seems to lean towards the idea that one spelling is preferred for one type of device, but doesn't support the idea that one spelling is wrong. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft for Etymology section

Here's a first stab at explaining the Etymology:

The word "fuze" is derived from the Latin fusus, meaning "spindle", referring to the spindle of material which was originally used for the ignition of bombs. Historically, it was spelled with either s or z, and both spellings can still be found. The modern, common British spelling is "fuse". In the military, this spelling is considered to refer specifically to a burning fuse, and for more complex devices, "fuze" is the preferred spelling.

I will leave the experts to re-draft and choose the best citation for military usage. Perhaps once we get this sorted, it will clear up the confuzion once and for all. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC); last updated 11:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest for the first missing citation in the above proposal from the text: ...a fuse is a device for communicating fire. and for the second missing citation from the text: A fuze is a weapon subsystem that activates the warhead mechanism in the vicinity of the target and also maintains the warhead in a safe condition during all prior phases of the logistics and operational chain.

While these references were published in the United States, I suggest that despite the United Kingdom's international historical prominence as a manufacturer of military hardware, the United States has dominated military weapons trade since the world wars, and a major fraction of modern military weapons publications in the international marketplace describe weapons manufactured in the United States with instruction manuals written in American English. British English spelling may be of historical interest, but on the basis of present usage might best be included as a parenthetical alternative in the lead: (or fuse in British English) Thewellman (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thewellman: Thank you for the additional sources. The dictionary sources in the lead state that both are valid American English spellings for this meaning, so we cannot imply that one is exclusively British. Due to the policy on WP:SYNTHESIS, we cannot combine spellings from different sources to support a conclusion that specific meanings have a preferred spelling in the military. There is a potentially suitable source ("Explosives Terms and Definitions") mentioned at Talk:Plasticine, but I am not able to personally verify it or comment on its reliability. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Expanded text of the 1943 Davis reference may alleviate concern about the Wikipedia synthesis policy: Note the spelling of fuze: a fuze is a device for initiating the explosion of high-explosive shells or of bombs, shrapnel, mines, grenades, etc.; a fuse is a device for communicating fire. I provided the more modern reference to illustrate the former definition remains in use. I have been unable to find any definition of fuse in modern United States military publications because the burn rate of fuses becomes unacceptably unpredictable under anticipated variable conditions of temperature, moisture, and sudden acceleration which may fracture a burning grain to create alternative burning surfaces acting in accordance with Piobert's law. I consider dictionaries and the suggested Explosive Terms and Definitions less appropriate because of ambiguity created by continued civilian use of fuses under controlled conditions with mining and demolition explosives (and under less controlled conditions with improvised explosive devices), while this article pertains specifically to military munitions. I remain receptive to fuse definitions from more recent (American English) military publications which might refute inference of a British English spelling difference. Thewellman (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I looked at the Text-book of Ordnance and Gunnery. Annapolis., United States Naval Institute, 1905. cited above and found it dated. TNT was not available then, and the text showed that current high explosive artillery shells were poor weapons. High explosives were appropriate for torpedos, and it gave designs of "exploders". The artillery fuses were the communicate fire variety: they were adjustable burning trains to set a time delay. The notion of high explosives was only at a very basic level and consequent problems with terminology. Modern gunpowder was termed a high explosive and not viewed as a propellant even though pressure control was desired. IIRC, "detonating fuse" was used where a fuse was ot enough. Detonation was sometimes done by igniting a contained chamber of fulminate of mercury. I agree that using dictionary definitions seems inappropriate. To put it another way, a fuse and a stick of dynamite are pretty much worthless. Glrx (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for the further references and clarification. It looks like the distinction made in the text I drafted above puts too much emphasis on the difference in complexity between the two types of initiator, and not enough on burn rateneeds more work. As to the question of whether the s spelling is a British variant or the z spelling a US/military variant, Britannica says, "The United States and some other military forces have adopted the “z” spelling for the device in ordnance munitions". I disagree that referencing dictionaries is inappropriate. Dictionaries are secondary sources for common language, and this is an encycopedia, WP:NOT a military training manual. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC); updated Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is another reference from Spencer C Tucker (2015), Instruments of War: Weapons and Technologies That Have Changed History:

The fuze is the means by which military explosive ordnance such as artillery shells, hand grenades, bombs, and mines are detonated. The earliest fuzes consisted of trains of combustible material to ignite the main charge, while modern fuzes detonate on contact...(p. 47)

...glowing tip of the match (really a very slow-burning fuse) (p. 42)

Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft 2 for Etymology section

Here is a new draft:

The word "fuze" is derived from the Latin fusus, meaning "spindle", referring to the spindle of material that was originally used for the ignition of bombs. Historically, it was spelled with either 's' or 'z', and both spellings can still be found. The modern, common British spelling is The Oxford English Dictionary lists "fuse". In the United States and some military forces, "fuze" is the preferred spelling for a device used to detonate exploding munitions, and "fuse" is preferred for devices used to transmit fire (for example, in a matchlock firearm).

References

I think with this suggested replacement, we can remove the {{worldwide view}} template from the top of the article. Any comments? Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC); modified as annotated, following discussion 12:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong on so many levels. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

In that case, let's see some reliable sources contradicting it, so we can put it right. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

When you're so wildly wrong as to conflate matchlocks as some sort of "fuselock" (a failure of both etymology and mechanics), then there is simply no communication possible. All of this has been spelled out on this page (and other fuze-related pages) for years. Your recent claims at Plasticine were a reasonable misunderstanding for something that is admittedly only meaningful within a narrow and specialist context, and first led astray by someone with a proven habit of trolling and socking just for the lulz. But to come to this page and start propagating these sorts of invention (Just why does it keep coming up that either "fuse" is a British aberration or that "fuze" is, when clearly this is no sort of national variation?) - No. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact a matchlock contains a "slow burning fuse" is referenced, quoted, and linked above. However, I've no objection to removing the example in parentheses, as I don't think it adds much of value to this article.

I see from above that all of this has been argued about for years, if not decades. Despite that, Wikipedia still lacks citations to support the controversial claims it makes; that is why it keeps coming up. I have tried to set the ball rolling here by providing some. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If your source says that a matchlock contains a "fuse", rather than a match, then (as is perennially the problem with weaponry) you need to use a more competent source. There is unfortunately no shortage of cheap, simplistic and sensationalist sources around the subject. By your own reasonable definitions, a fuse is some form of powder train, used to transmit fire. A matchlock uses a match. It doesn't use powder as part of it (saltpetre isn't black powder), the fire isn't transmitted from place to place, it merely smoulders away at the same end of the match. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. First, looking at the images in the current article turns up several British military drawings that use "fuze" (it also turns up a couple that use "fuse"; File:No16DMkIVNBasePercussionFuzeLarge.jpg uses "Base Percussion Fuse" in its title but "Marking on Empty Fuze" lower down). There is no question that the British use "fuze" to refer to the subject of this article; British armourers also scribbled "fuzed" on bombs (File:Bombing up 106 Squadron Lancaster WWII IWM CH 12541.jpg). The "fuze" proponents know that "fuse" is also used; one can find "proximity fuse" and "proximity fuze". Second, the offered etymology is confused and contradictory. It uses WP:TERTIARY sources when they have been challenged above. Here's Oxford Reference going the other way: "fuse" in US military and "fuze" in UK.[2] That's fickle, but those who compile dictionaries need not know the word's subject matter. The man on the street isn't going to know much about explosives either. The offered etymology sounds more like backdoor advocacy to change the article title using a WP:COMMONNAME argument ("The modern, common British spelling is" in a BE article). It does not cover both sides of the debate. The thing known by spindle/"fusus" is usually spelled "fuse" on both sides of the Pond; see Fuse (explosives). We fire guns, cannon, and bullets; that is, we ignite the gunpowder to get the desired result. We don't "ignite" modern high explosives; igniting a bomb carries the image of a 19th century anarchist lighting the fuse on his bomb or some modern-day celebrants lighting the fuses on firecrackers and cherry bombs. All are just old technology gunpowder bombs, but they still use fuses. More subtle is that igniting the fuse is just one step; it does not cause the explosion. It will light the gunpowder within the bomb, but the fuse does not cause the explosion. The Boston Marathon bombing used the same anarchist bomb technology; you might find the "fuze" proponents split on whether an alarm clock, a battery, and a model rocket igniter compose a "fuse", a "fuze", or something else. The phrase "detonate exploding munitions" is just odd; it suggests confusion about low and high explosives. There had to be a profound change when the military switched to high explosives; fuses just don't cut it anymore. As Andy points out, matches and fuses have different purposes; people don't use fuses to light birthday candles. It's only a silly letter, but there is a difference between the burning string on the end of a firecracker and the miniature radar set that is screwed into the nose an artillery shell. The offered etymology does have support in sources, but it lacks depth about its subject matter. Glrx (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive critique. As far as I'm concerned, there is no dispute that the British military use "fuze" to refer to the subject of this article; that is consistent with the Britannica citation, although it doesn't specifically mention the British. The MOD source mentioned at plasticine states a "preferred spelling", which is consistent with the above.

The spelling claim made in Fuse (explosives) requires a citation. In case you missed it, Hogg argues the 'spindle' derivation in support of a 'z' spelling (see above). Davis' definition of "fuze" includes "the explosion of high-explosive shells or of bombs [...] etc." (my emphasis). Yes, when I wrote "ignition of bombs", I was, as you correctly inferred, describing the historical context. Tucker (cited above) describes on p.49 the lighting of the "fuze" on a petard. The only time he uses "fuse" is in his section on the matchlock (where he is apparently describing the construction of a slow match). This is the only sourced example I have seen of a specific object spelled 'fuse' in contrast to different usage of 'fuze' by the same author. As you point out, a firearm is fired, not exploded.

Evidently I don't have sufficient sources, specialist knowledge, or even vocabulary to rewrite the draft in depth. I still believe it contains improvements on the current etymology section, which fails WP:NPOV by only mentioning the 'z' spelling, fails WP:VER by not citing the fact the spelling is "generally used" for a specific meaning (it cites only examples, which is a hasty generalization fallacy as well as WP:OR), fails WP:WEASEL by not explaining who uses this spelling (I know I wrote "can be", but it's marginally better than making a false claim of being generally true), and doesn't attempt to explain the etymology.

I'm sure there is enough combined expertise here to address all this in order to improve the article. I look forward to reading draft 3. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC); edited 09:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC); I originally self-reverted "can be" rather than posting the underlined comment here, but it has since been reinstated. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Glrx: Thanks for your latest addition to the further reading. I note p.23 uses the same spelling for smoke bombs and flares as other munitions fuzes. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC); edited 11:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverted edit

@Glrx: Please explain your reasoning for your removal of the information about the etymology and usage of the term "fuze". Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I reverted because the topic is under discussion here, you have not garnered consensus for your change, but you installed it anyway. You installed your draft after apparently conceding that it has problems: "Evidently I don't have sufficient sources, specialist knowledge, or even vocabulary to rewrite the draft in depth." Consequently, you know you don't have consensus here, so the WP:BOLD comment is disingenuous. You want to use dictionary (tertiary) definitions; that has been opposed above. I do not dispute that the etymology section is poor and confused (a fuze initiating a fuze) and currently doesn't address the word's origins at all. Glrx (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing the discussion. I accept that my initial proposal to replace the entire etymology section has not gained consensus, and I agree the section will still need work. For the reasons given above, I would have preferred to replace the long list of fuzes (and their cites), but I'm willing to wait for someone else to write a better concise summary than I can.

The only dictionary cited in my recent edit is the OED, which some editors consider a secondary source. The first OED cite is backed by a specialist secondary source (Hogg). In the second cite, the OED is a WP:PRIMARY source on itself. Few objections were raised about the material added in that edit, and I don't see any that remain unresolved. Is there any legitimate concern against this edit? Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair representation of "fuse"

We now have a detailed description of the military preference for the -z spelling when referring to modern fuzes, including Hogg's opinion other spellings are "incorrect".

In accordance with WP:NPOV we must fairly represent all significant published views. Nearly all my attempts to describe opposing views made since January have been reverted, sometimes with given justifications that directly contradict policy (see my previous comment).

@Glrx: Do you have any suggestion of how to describe the fact that some consider the -s spelling to be the correct one? Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

How about we just use "fuze"? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, the article should use "fuze" as the primary spelling; the "fuse" spelling is for something else -- the safety fuse.

There are modern, reliable, secondary, sources that address the distinction between "fuse" and "fuze". There are both military and civilian versions of those sources that tell us the thing screwed into the nose of a shell or bomb is preferably a "fuze" rather than a "fuse". A safety fuse is incapable of detonating modern high explosives. See refs 5 and 6 and Talk:Plasticine#Spelling of Fuse.

Oliver Hogg's statement prescribing "fuze" as the one true spelling is made in Oliver Hogg's voice. It is a statement that is stronger than the preference stated by the Ministry of Defence.

It is appropriate for WP to say that the "fuse" spelling is sometimes used because both spellings are found: there are both military and civilian publications that use "fuse" in the munitions context. MOD only states a preference. I would not offer the alternate spelling in the lede.

I do see tertiary sources that make passing comments about preferring "fuse" over "fuze", but those sources do not demonstrate subject depth. If a tertiary source does not distinguish a safety fuse from a bomb fuze, then its views should carry little or no weight.

I do not see reliable secondary sources saying the -s spelling is the correct one.

It is not appropriate to say that "The civilian spelling is 'fuse'" in WP's voice. It contradicts the rest of the article.

A single reference about Civil War weapons published by The University of North Texas Press does not carry much weight for modern usage. WP:UNDUE. The UNT Press blurb and the Amazon blurb describe the author as a Civil War buff from the age of ten with degrees in marketing, political science, and international relations. I don't see an appropriate degree. He was a Marine Corps captain with many postings, but no claim to training in modern ordnance or explosives. Amazon shows it as his only book.

Civil War shells did not use high explosives and did not require an explosive train that produced a detonation shock. The typical Civil War shell was just an iron-cased firecracker. Conceptually, there is little difference between a burning safety "fuse" and a burning Civil War time "fuze": both can communicate fire to a low explosive. The primary difference between a safety fuse and a shell's time fuze was the clever way the shell's time fuze was ignited. A person lights a fuse with a match. Hot gases from the propellant ignite a shell's time fuze. That difference alone is significant enough to distinguish the spelling. You don't want an artilleryman lighting a shell's fuSe and then shoving it hurridly down the barrel; that's a disaster if the cannon doesn't fire. See Artillery fuze#Early history. A fuze offers safety beyond the controlled timing of a safety fuse. I could see a Civil War buff misunderstanding the difference between fuse and fuze. (The Civil War era percussion and concussion fuzes are much different from the safety fuse. See CivilWarArtillery.com.) Although Civil War time fuzes communicate fire to the main charge, they have additional complexity beyond their hot gas ignition. The Bormann fuze, for example, has a booster charge to transition to the shell's larger grains.[3] As the WP article's lede states, "The relative complexity of even the earliest fuze designs can be seen in cutaway diagrams."

That some authors consider "fuse" correct does not mean their views should be mentioned. It is not NPOV to push an isolated belief by a small group of authors. WP:DUE It is certainly not the case that a minor viewpoint should be stated in WP's voice.

The weight given to different sources is something that is established by consensus.

You have made many previous claims about the "fuse"/"fuze" spelling, but many of those claims have been discredited. You have claimed that fuze is the American spelling and fuse is the British spelling, but fuze has been the British spelling since the early 19th century. You've used dictionary sources to support your position, but those are tertiary sources that are not entitled to automatic deference. The tertiary source issue has been explained to you. The Oxford sources were even contradictory wrt spelling. You apparently ignore the extensive descriptions using "fuze" in the (admittedly tertiary) Encyclopedia Britanica (which is neither a military nor an American English publication). You've cited dated sources that were written before high explosives were introduced. You've edited against consensus. In this very talk page subtopic, you are deleting Andy Dingley's comments.[4][5]

Glrx (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

All this hot air should be vented at Wiktionary, not here. Here is where to discuss actual content for fuze (sometimes spelt fuse) which ignites military projectiles, mines etc. I don't give a sh%t how anybody spells it or why. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fuze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091210112547/http://www.ordnance.org:80/fuzes.htm to http://www.ordnance.org/fuzes.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC); checked by Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

silly identification of important source

The following source is often quoted but not comprehensibly identified, and providing the link ministry of defence is simply silly; there are ministries of defence in most countries: Ministry of Defence (Army Dept.) (1968). Explosives Terms and Definitions --Espoo (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming it means the Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom), as British institutions generally think they need no disambiguation (as with Royal Navy, RAF, etc.) but there are MODs in other English-speaking countries. Since we can't tell for sure by what's there, I've added a {{which}} tag. - BilCat (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fuze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA312253
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925001412/http://www.defensetech.org:80/archives/002534.html to http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002534.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209173804/http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/pubs/B-GL-371-006-FP-001.PDF to http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/pubs/B-GL-371-006-FP-001.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091210112547/http://www.ordnance.org:80/fuzes.htm to http://www.ordnance.org/fuzes.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hogg Quote

I apologize if it came up before, the history is kind of long and involved, but does not the Hogg quote actually go against the usage immediately preceding it? The statement preceding Hogg argues an S-fuse is a burning wick, while a Z-fuze is a mechanical detonator, while Hogg seems to argue an S-fuse is a system for interrupting current flow, while a Z-fuze is any detonator, burning or mechanical. So, is the Hogg quote really support for the usage Wikipedia is promoting, or is it not argument against that usage? 2601:140:C004:7328:B587:4D3B:4A18:8268 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hogg is British so this is just the usual English / Internatioanl difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.189.26.23 (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I commend you on your observation and your courage in making it. It is, in fact, not exactly clear what Hogg is arguing. He declares that "fuse" describes something that melts, as in fuse wire, whereas a "fuze" is "a tube filled with combustible material" - precisely what the proponents of "fuze" say it isn't. That's a "fuse". Whatever point Hogg was trying to make, he makes a mess of it. His argument doesn't support his opening sentence.

A small correction, btw: Hogg's quote is an argument against the usage that some "editors" are promoting; Wikipedia does not promote anything - it is neutral at all times. I think I can guarantee that if I were to remove this irrelevant quote it would immediately be reinstated.

What happens here is that some "editors" stuff the article with examples of their preferred usage and declare victory. What they haven't done is provide a source that explicitly validates, to the standard they usually insist on, their assertion.

I must say that I should have loved to be there on the day that an officer of ordnance in whatever country it was said, "Right men, thanks to the boffins there'll be no more messing about with bits of string and gunpowder and Swan Vestas when you need a fuse. They've come up with this mechanical and/or electronic component that does away with all that. Now, to avoid any confusion with "fuses" we've called them "fuzes". Is that clear?" And, of course, the English-speaking world's leading dictionaries don't seem to have heard of this distinction. It's known only to some artillerymen and a small number of Wikipedia "editors".

Unfortunately, arguing against the "fuze" lobby carries all sorts of dangers. One can be accused of Meat Puppetry, have one's comments removed from Talk pages, and face demands for permanent exclusion from Wikipedia, which is tricky. But we must remember that Wikipedia meets different needs in different people. Hengistmate (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

See what I mean? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fuze&type=revision&diff=806189595&oldid=806179444 Hengistmate (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The Ministry of Defence gets it wrong.

https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/838043044821729280

Hengistmate (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fuze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319014342/http://213.162.22.164/fileadmin/pdf/mbc/IWP/SC_june05/speeches_gs/HRW_17June05.pdf to http://213.162.22.164/fileadmin/pdf/mbc/IWP/SC_june05/speeches_gs/HRW_17June05.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002534.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ordnance.org/fuzes.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Fuse vs. Fuze Once more.

Just wanted to add my 2-cents in, cause the distinction, as described on Quora by Joel Crouch, M.S. Electrical Engineering, University of South Florida, was not mentioned earlier. >>

"A fuse is an electrical component that protects against overcurrent by burning a small filament wire inside a glass tube and opening up circuit, whereas a fuze is a mechanical/chemical component of an explosive. They sound the same, spelled differently, and have completely different meanings."

Language (including its various translations) and spelling are prone to modernization and error, therefore debatable, however, physics are not. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.246.191 (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems you are uzing a poorly selected source. Perhaps you are confuzed. 2A00:23EE:1060:4F5:E34E:3635:D830:3749 (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Barometric fuze

The section at Barometric fuze currently reads Barometric fuzes cause a bomb to detonate at a certain pre-set altitude above sea level by means of a radar, barometric altimeter or an infrared rangefinder.

No references are given. I think it is a problem on several grounds. Radar and rangefinder fuzes are not barometric, and the link to Barometric fuze just leads back to this section.

Barometric fuzes have sometimes been combined with other types, see for example Little Boy#Fuze system. But that doesn't make these other types themselves barometric. Andrewa (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Etymology

The Etymology section and the discussion about the use of 'fuse' and 'fuze' remain unresolved. Here's the problem:

Wikipdia presents the following definitions:

Fuse - a cord or tube for the transmission of flame or explosion, usually consisting of cord or rope with gunpowder or high explosive spun into it; a simple pyrotechnic initiating device, like the cord on a firecracker.

Fuze - a device with explosive components designed to initiate a main charge; a more sophisticated ignition device incorporating mechanical and/or electronic components.

Oliver Hogg (Artillery: Its Origin, Heyday, and Decline. Archon Books, 1970. The University of Michigan. p183. ISBN 0208010408, 9780208010407) says this:

Fuse - derived from fusus, the past participle of fundo, means "to melt", e.g., the term "fuse-wire" used in electrical circuits.

Fuze - the shortened or modern method of spelling "fuzee", meaning a tube filled with combustible material. It is a derivation of fusus, a spindle and from the French fusee, a spindle full of thread.

Wikipedia is distinguishing between a "complex electrical/mechanical device" and "a simple pyrotechnic initiating device, like the cord on a firecracker."

Hogg is distinguishing between "a tube filled with combustible material" and "a device used in electrical systems to protect against excessive current".

Therefore, Hogg says that a fuze is what Wikipedia says it isn't.

Since this is a false comparison and since the source contradicts the assertion it is meant to support, it cannot be considered reliable. Removing it. It's not helpful to the article, and I'm sure no one would wish to perpetuate the dichotomy. Hengistmate (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

As Brigadier Hogg was Assistant Master-General of Ordnance and a Director at the Ministry of Supply I don't think you can mark him down as unreliable just like that.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure Mr. Hogg was the most reliable man imaginable. He is not wrong in stating that a fuse is a device for protecting electrical circuits. Unfortunately, that assertion has no bearing on the matter, since no one is arguing anything else. It is irrelevant. Whether he is wrong in saying that a fuze is a tube filled with combustible material is the subject of much, occasionally acrimonious, discussion in this article. But the reference certainly contradicts one of the article's most fiercely held tenets, which is that a fuze is an ignition device incorporating mechanical and/or electronic components.

So, once again: of the two statements in what I should probably refer to as Mr. Hogg's source, one is of no relevance, and the other contradicts the Wikipedia view it is meant to support. In these circumstances, removing the citation seems to be the only realistic course of action. Hengistmate (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)