Talk:Molotov cocktail

I've removed the "obsolete" definition of a self-igniting British variant. It seems as it's merely one of a myriad of variants of Molotov cocktail "recipes" and it has no citation.

Don't know what else to say except that it doesn't belong in a dictionary.

Peter Isotalo 03:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Molotov cocktail
Rfv-sense: A similar incendiary but made stoppered and containing phosphorus dissolved in benzene which would self-ignite when smashed and the contents exposed to air. Issued to civilians in Britain during World War II.

It certainly does seem separate to the first sense so it's just a question of existence. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Added here. I've had a look at and as a whole his edits seem ok, just the most recent is 2007. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see the reason that this should be a completely separate definition. It appears to be a rather specific encyclopedic description of a variant of the basic concept of a Molotov cocktail. To me it makes as little as sense as having several separate definitions for technical variants of firebombs, depending on their contents or specific type of design.
 * 90.129.132.22 22:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC) (Peter Isotalo logged off)


 * This is an RFV, not an RFD. If you think that the definition doesn't constitute a separate sense, you can nominate it for RFD. --WikiTiki89 22:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this sense in attested now, if you see the 1976, 2008, and 2011 quotations in Citations:Molotov cocktail. I'm inclined, however, to agree with Peter Isotalo that the distinction between the entry's two current senses is very minor; if they are both included, then it may be difficult to argue why separate senses for these eight recipes ought not also to be added. OTOH, seems to be a synonym of the historical British sense only (see the 2008 quotation), so these two senses may both be worth keeping, but reduced to subsenses of a broader "simple incendiary device" sense. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would RFD the sense. --WikiTiki89 23:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just did. It appears I could have been linked to WFD as soon as there was disagreement, but instead I was blocked for "vandalism" without discussion or warning a few minutes before this was posted. I've been editing here for a few years, but I have never had these kinds of problems removing irrelevant content before. Not exactly an ideal form of conflict resolution.
 * 193.181.1.138 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * RFV passed. An RFD discussion led to the two senses being merged. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

RFD discussion: December 2013–March 2014
The second definition of this entry appears to be nothing but a technical variant on the basic concept of a simple bomb consisting of a bottle filled with flammable material designed to explode on impact. Defining a highly specific type of design as a separate dictionary definition would be akin to having separate definitions for firebombs for numerous technical solution. And as pointed out at WT:RFV, it would be difficult to motivate that numeros other "recipes" for Molotov cocktails should not have separate definitions as well.

193.181.1.138 07:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC) (Peter Isotalo as IP-user due to vandalism block for this edit)
 * Delete. Difference is merely technical. Same basic idea. Kaldari (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. As was already mentioned somewhere, different recipes for cakes don't need separate definitions. --WikiTiki89 01:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WikiTiki. - -sche (discuss) 01:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Broaden the first sense to encompass the second, and then delete the second. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. First def is particularly the case. DAVilla 11:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've merged the definitions. - -sche (discuss) 18:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)