Talk:Combustibility and flammability

Untitled
This article used to be called Inflammability. The article and the talk page were moved to Flammability and then edited further.--Achim 18:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Poor Article
This is NOT a good article. It is a paragraph article about a broad topic. It requires expansion, citation, good photos, and better organization (not really applicable for a 1 paragraph article). Do not nominate articles as bad as this as Good Articles. It wastes the reviewers time and delays the evaluation of pages that people spent a lot time working on. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have no idea why anyone would consider this a good article.

Just another sign of the dumbing down of America. So we can no longer say "inflammable" because people get confused? Great! Let us cater to the ignorant; it will only serve to strengthen America!!

Wholeheartedly I concur. The article says nothing about what influences flammibilty, etc. It is incomplete and pratically useless. It needs to be finished.

It has outright errors all through it, and nowhere does it actually talk about flammability. As in, compared to combustability, or what does it actually mean to say a substance is "flammable" (it's a lot more involved than 'does it burn'). 69.145.252.174 (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)flamable means burning.

Perhaps before lecturing, you should try to figure out what WP and this page are about. This isn't a place to debate what SHOULD be the term which is used. The language HAS evolved whether you think it should have or not. It is an encyclopedic fact. I suggest you get over it today. I mean, "to-day". It is vulgar to not put a hyphen in the word "to-day". That was the rule in 1900 and I'll be DAMNED if we every move to a different standard for that word. In fact, you should flog yourself every time you leave out the hyphen in "to-day". Then move on to chastising people who use the word "Indiana" in a joke about Star Trek characters. Njsustain (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Last quote on page
The last sentence says "...should use inflammable" shouldn't that say "flammable" ? The sentence doesn't make sense otherwise. --Royalflight 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I confirm that the quote is correct. It does make sense. If you are concerned for the safety of children and illiterates, use flammable. If not, use inflammable. --Quaestor 03:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, "Inflammable" should be used if you are speaking to people who were curmudgeony in the 1950s and died in the 1970s. Otherwise, use "flammable." 68.199.97.145 (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward
I agree with everyone that this article needs attention. Those of us who work in the field of fire protection ordinarily refer to flammable items as those, which catch on fire easily, whereas "inflammable" would denote the opposite. However, it is not proper trade lingo. What really drives such definitions is regulations such as the local fire code or the NFPA standards they reference, and the international equivalents. I propose moving this to the term "Flammability" if possible (not sure because that term re-directs to "inflammability") and then re-writing to cite proper code references, so that the article does not contradict codes, which it does right now. Any objection, please tell me. --Achim 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the article carefully. "Inflammable" never refers to the opposite of flammable in English. The "in-" prefix is not Latin. It just refers to something that can go up "in" flames. Reginmund 06:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Noted but it still doesn't do much good since the industry lingo and code lingo and testing lingo that actually deals with the subject matter, real products in the field and codes being applied does not recognise the old term. I see that someone helped with the move, so we can now work on fixing the article... The linguistic gymnastics are nifty, but what matters is application in the field, does it not? --Achim 15:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I redirected the page to inflammability. The liguistics are not "nifty"; they could not be more clear. The proper term is inflammability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore must reflect the proper English term. Any misuse of "flammable" or "flammability" can be discussed in the body of the article. 172.129.15.175 (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The sole standard of attribution in WP is verifiable sources. The word inflammable occurs exactly once in the entire series of NFPA codes. It is used in NFPA 312 Standard for Fire Protection of Vessels During Construction, Conversion, Repair, and Lay-Up, section A.4.4.1, "The terms flammable and inflammable have the same meaning." There are many other references which conclude the same, as a Google search confirms, ranging from writing guides (e.g., Write Right!: A Desktop Digest of Punctuation, Grammar, and Style By Jan Venolia) to scientific texts (e.g., Standard Handbook of Plant Engineering By Robert C. Rosaler, p. 4.171, "Flammable and inflammable are identical in meaning. Flammable is used in preference to inflammable.") Fireproeng (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you insist, I can find many sources that say that the proper term is inflammable. There is no such word as "flammable".  An encyclopedia entry must be based on the proper grammatical term, not on a term that was coined to to a musinderstanding of the prefix "in". 172.129.15.175 (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Flammable from Merriam-Webster. KnightLago (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I insist. Allusions to references are not sufficient. Your statement that the term flammable does not exist in the face of the verified sources cited is ridiculous. Please do not revert this page again unless consensus is reached to do so, or a block will be requested. Fireproeng (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's so funny to find myself agreeing with Fireproeng :-) For a look at who is editing this page anonymously, please click here: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=Flammability The funniest comment on this talk page, to me, is calling the fire protection industry, and by that I mean people involved with test standards and building codes, products, consultants, construction and building maintenance children and illiterates. That's absolutely hilarious. For the author of that particular prose, let me ask you this: Have you ever worked on a task group for a nationally accredited standard? If you did, you would know that the outcome is a consensus document. That takes a lot of travel expenses borne by the TG members, coffee and sandwiches by the standards writing organisation. Consensus means that industry insiders agreed upon it and then, AFTER THAT, the accreditation body signed off on it and THEN it became LAW OF THE LAND by being included in codes. That is what it takes for a code to demand compliance with a standard. And what do you have to back up your stuff? Linguistic gymnastics? Just go with the flow dude, or see if you can get on a standard task group with UL or NFPA and see what reception you'll have when you call them all idiots for not going along with you and changing common industry terminology. By the way, you need a certain industry pedigree to get on such a group. But I thank you for your most entertaining prose. That made my night. --Achim (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Something just occurred to me: I must assume that our linguistics expert here has no experience in fire protection. If he did, he would be aware of other bastardisations of the English language in our trade. A perfect example is Fireproofing. You can apply the stuff but that does not mean that the treated item is henceforth immune to fire of sufficient duration and intensity. Some Meschuggener came up with the term God only knows how long ago, probably a salesman or marketing type with no technical understanding, and the term stuck. It's a stupid use of the word, because there is no such thing, when applied grammatically correctly. But the fact of the matter is that this is the industry term, in standards and codes and in the trade. That is the nature of language, particularly the English language, target that it always was of foreign influences with invaders in Britain, etc. The German term for the same thing is FAR more descriptive and accurate: Brandschutz Spritzputz, which translates to fire protection spray plaster. One must admit that "fireproofing" is easier and shorter, albeit linguistically challenged. You're not going to change it now because it's in all the consensus documents. That's the City Hall you're attempting to fight on here. It's futile. The main reason it is futile is because you're missing the point of the language: You say it and I understand it. When you now say "inflammability", you're literally talking gibberish. --Achim (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think that anyone is disputing the consenus document that uses flammable. My concern is that the proper word is actually "inflammable", meanning that something is capable of being inflammed. To use "flammable" is to say that something is capable of being "flammed"; hardly grammatical.  Just because some firemen's manuals use an incorrect form, we do not have to insert the incorrect form into an encyclopedia article.  Firemen are not known for their extensive vocabularies and knowledge of English grammar, at least in my area. 172.129.15.175 (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:SOURCE:"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Fireproeng (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And thanks for the edit about how fire protection industry insiders are "some less educated people". You crack me up, anonymous dude :-) --Achim (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if anyone assumes that something is not inflammble when they see the word "inflammble", it does mean that they are less educated, at least about the prefix "in". I did not single out the fire protection industry; it would apply to anybody.  The situation would be similar to not knowing the difference between "who" and "whom" or pronouncing "library" as "liberry".  It is a sad state of affairs that so many Americans are so ignorant when it comes to English grammar.  An encyclopedia, however, should not indulge this ignorance by titling an article with a word that was coined because people "were confused" by the proper word.  172.129.15.175 (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "...should not indulge this ignorance by titling an article with a word that was coined because people "were confused" by the proper word." A-HA! There's the rub... the word WAS coined, for whatever reason... and it is now a word, and by far the predominantly used word for the definition, even if it is not the oldest. Ultimately, and this is just personal opinion, it is a better word because it IS less confusing. And [yes, I just began a sentence with a preposition, correctly, as it is accepted in CORRECT MODERN English] regardless of its "tawdry" orgins, it is a standard word. You are offended by the origin of the word, which is clouding your judgement of the use of current standard vocabulary. If you really care about standards in language, you should accept this NEW standard. Get over it and move on with your life, pretty please. --Njsustain (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you just don't get it. You keep harping on your own points but you are not absorbing what is being said to you. Also, your own grammar is not that hot. Check your talk page for an example. Also, lousy grammar is not something the US have a monopoly on, especially these days. There's perfectly distasteful prose originating from the UK too. Ever hear of Cockney? I would suggest that you open your mind to what is being said to you and then perhaps check your manners as well. A) You're not getting it. B) Your grammar sucks too. Apart from that, you're beating a dead horse. In all English speaking countries whose national governments are signatory to ISO (which does not leave a lot of real estate), it's FLAMMABLE, not inflammable, regardless of how flawed that may be. Languages evolve. Maybe it's evolution backwards but there you have it. This is not even my native language. I like to think I have a fairly decent grasp of it though. I'd say pick another battle. This one is over. --Achim (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, you said that I have poor grammer? I do not appreciate the foul comments, saying that "my grammar sucks".  This sort of language is inappropriate for any venue, especially an encyclopedia's talk page.  I consider this a personal attack, one that is not necessary.  If we disagree on the article's content, it can be resolved, but you only weaken your own credibility by resorting to personal attacks and raunchy language.  71.174.181.168 (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is hardly foul language. Also, is it not indicative that you will not identify yourself, remain anonymous, and can't actually respond to the subject matter at hand? By the way, grammar has AR at the end. You put grammer. So, maybe there is a more politically correct way to put it, but the message does not change. I relly don't care what you think about anyone's credibility. You will not even identify yourself - and then you throw baseless threats around. Disagreement over content also cannot be resolved with you because you continue to repeat the same tired old stuff without understanding responses headed your way from me or anyone else. So, I don't take your blocking threats seriously. You have no adequate grasp of the English language. You don't understand the subject matter. You know little or nothing about fire protection. You can't back up what you are saying. You remain anonymous. Who is the one lacking in credibility? Your grasp for what is and what is not acceptable on a talk page is also lacking. We have definitions here on very graphic subject matter and terms. We had a banner on talk pages right at the top that encourages people to donate to Wikipedia by saying "Give us your fu§$ing money!" I did not invent that one by the way - I was against that. But to say something sucks (like your grammar skills), is hardly over the line. OK, so I'll say that it's grade school level English. Does that make you feel better? I really don't particularly care. Once again: I suggest you pick better battles and be better prepared and to accept input of other editors too. You're not exactly receiving any support here. --Achim (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick look at a dictionary clears this one up - "inflammable" is the term for general use "flammabel" is preferred in technical usage. Using "flammable" makes sense for international usage, as there are ahell of alot of scientists and engineers who use English as a lingua franca but might get confused by "inflammable", thinking it means "non-flammable." If the "fire protection community" uses "flammable" thats fine, as it is the usual technical term. "Inflammable" should never mean "non-flammable" - that is a mistake, and if it is indeed a very common one, then all that means is that its a very common mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.66.108.71 (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The above mass of off-topic argument notwithstanding, I'm of the opinion that the word used in the article should be "inflammable", which is the older and more technically correct term, and the one usually used in general contexts. The primary use of "flammable" is on warning labels, so as to prevent possible misinterpretation of the word. It is certainly not the 'technical' term - at least, not in the scientific community. It appears to be the preferred industry term, at least in the US, in the fire protection industry, but we shouldn't give industry terms precedence over general and scientific usage. 80.194.237.79 (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * People, language evolves. Accept it. The word "inflamed" thrives, but the word "inflammable" is becoming archaic, whether you like it or not. I am the most curmudgeony person in three counties, but I think the word "inflammable" is stupid because A) it confuses people, and SOUNDS confusing, whether you like it or not, and B) scientists, engineers, and technicians haven't used it in technical jargon (not just people trying to protect the unwashed masses) for at LEAST 30 years. Back in the 1960s you might have heard it, but it is archaic in the combustibility world, even if Websters hasn't pulled the sheet over its head yet. I'm not exactly a spring chicken, and "inflammable" is a word I associate with "post-war" movies and dusty old engineering volumes. Everyone knows what flammable means, even if it irks hyper-correct ultra-curmudgeons who also break into hives when an infinitive is split, a preposition ends a sentence, or when there's no hyphen in "to-day." Flammable is a word, just like "internet" and "telegraph." In my 30 years in science and engineering circles, I have never ONCE heard or read the word "inflammable" used in scientific, industrial, commercial, or technical use of any sort. Please take a leap into the 1980s and drop this ridiculousness already! --Njsustain (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it's a generational issue. I think inflammable still lives a perfectly good life. I don't think it should be Wikipedia's job to try and push it out of the language. Flammable is just a word that is made up specially for safety reasons. But seeing it as there is no danger of people setting a match to this article, I think the more traditional and correct term inflammable should be used.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of personal opinion. You may think it "should" be one way, but the standard is otherwise. The article recognizes that the word exists, it is not trying to "bury" it, it is simply recognizing the standard usage. Further, I disagree that "inflammable" is a word still leading a good life... it is becoming archaic, but that is neither here nor there.Njsustain (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Too many people - apparently including those in the industry - believe that "inflammable" is the opposite of flammable. They could not be more wrong. But this is not a new problem. 27 years ago I sat a law paper at university. A case study was based on a product being inflammable. Perhaps 75% of the students took that to mean not flammable. Only 25% understood what the word meant. The professor - whose mother tongue was not English - was mortified that law students in an English-speaking country could be so ignorant. I did not then, and do not now, believe that errors in linguistics should be condoned. They should be corrected.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The word 'inflammable' has the same origin as inflammation, i.e., it refers to burning, in the latter sense, to a burning sensation.


 * People unsure of the meaning should perhaps remember this simple aide-mémoire.


 * .. or perhaps invest in a 'proper' Oxford English dictionary.


 * There, that was simple, wasn't it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Most flammable
What is the most flammable gas? What is the most flammable liquid? Pikazilla (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ask this fellow: http://www.doctorfire.com/  --Achim (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Flammability ratings?
I was really hoping to learn more about flammbility from this article. Are there ratings to flammability? Is there a scale? How is it tested and applied? Are there different terms for substances/items that will only burn when a flame is applied, contrasted with substances/items that will sustain a flame? If anyone can answer these questions, please edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.188.29 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that. Isn't there a metric for flammability, used to compare flammable substances? Please delete this comment when addressed. Chrishibbard7 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion
From the looks of it, Combustibility and Flammability are "a measure of how easily a substance will burn, through fire or combustion." What if they both were merged into the same article? Mr Bell ( talk ) 23:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Support
Actually i do not know much about that but it can be a step leading towards keeping people be able to search through topics quickly and easily which seem to be relative. Though they are not actually the same like loudness and pitch too but now that is what Wikipedia is meant for enlightening people. And actually the difference between the two topics must be represented on the same page which must be given a different name or must be redirected to from the two articles Mr. Bell and everyone else taking part in this discussion is no doubt right to some extent. But at least I feel that these must be merged together so that people make full use of Wikipedia and all these points should be written on the page. (unsigned)


 * All you need to do is add links to the other article. As the opposing opinions state, and you admit, they are different subjects, so merging them would be inappropriate. 74.102.162.119 (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

oppose

 * They are and they aren't they do have similar meanings however they are different in important ways. That are not readily apparent from the articles. Krj373 (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * These are two distinctly different concepts in the fire testing community. The test methods for determining combustibility and flammavility are completely different from each other. Combustibility includes smoldering as well as flaming combustion, whereas flammability requires flaming combustion. Flammability generally is used in the description of liquids or gasses, combustibility is typically applied to solids. The ASTM committee on Fire Standards, the committee responsible for writing most of the fire tests used in North America, define combustion and flammable as follows:
 * combustible, adj—capable of undergoing combustion. (1985)


 * DISCUSSION—The term combustible is often delimited to speciﬁc ﬁre-exposure conditions. For example, building materials are considered
 * combustible if they are capable of undergoing combustion in air at pressures and temperatures that might occur during a ﬁre in a building. Similarly, some materials that are not combustible under such conditions may be combustible when exposed to higher temperatures and pressures or to an oxygen-enriched environment. Materials that are not combustible in bulk form may be combustible in ﬁnely divided form. (1985)
 * ﬂammable, adj—(1) capable of burning with a ﬂame under speciﬁed conditions, or (2) when used to designate high hazard, subject to easy ignition and rapid ﬂaming combustion. (1995)
 * ﬂammable, adj—(1) capable of burning with a ﬂame under speciﬁed conditions, or (2) when used to designate high hazard, subject to easy ignition and rapid ﬂaming combustion. (1995)


 * DISCUSSION—The ﬁrst deﬁnition is needed as it is the deﬁnition recognized by the principal international standardization bodies, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The second deﬁnition has been the ASTM Terminology E176 deﬁnition and is the principal deﬁnition recognized by the lay public. The terms in the second deﬁnition “easy ignition” and “rapid ﬂaming combustion,” may seem insufficiently precise but are made precise in standards that use the terms in that way, such as standards on the ﬁre hazards of materials (for example, NFPA704; NFPA 321, on ﬂammable liquids; and NFPA 55, on ﬂammable gases). (1995).


 * 206.83.218.251 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The two are distinctly different by definition. Combustibility if nearly absolute. Either you pass the non-combustibility test or you don't. DIN4102 differentiates between an A1 (100% inorganic) and an A2 (like 98% inorganic) rating but most of its international cousins are basically pass or fail. Fammability on the other hand breaks down a further, such as DIN4102 B1 (hard to ignite, like a high quality silicone caulking such as Nelson CLK or Tremco Fyresil, etc.), B2 (normal combustibility, like timber), and B3 (easily ignited - like polyurethane foam). The reason for this is that the basis of it all is building codes. You differentiate combustible from non-combustible construction. As materials evolved, these absolutes became less desirable. Flammability was quantified further, such as through ASTM E 84 flame spread ratings. As a result, certain organic items like plastic pipe, when made with fire retardants, can achieve lower flame spread than untreated ones, permitting their use even in otherwise non-combustible buildings, depending on the type of occupancy, building height, etc. NFPA calls it items of "limited combustibility" but then there is also outright flammability and being highly flammable, like automotive fuel. This differentiation makes it illogical to combine the two terms. --Achim (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The two are distinctly different by definition. Combustibility if nearly absolute. Either you pass the non-combustibility test or you don't. DIN4102 differentiates between an A1 (100% inorganic) and an A2 (like 98% inorganic) rating but most of its international cousins are basically pass or fail. Fammability on the other hand breaks down a further, such as DIN4102 B1 (hard to ignite, like a high quality silicone caulking such as Nelson CLK or Tremco Fyresil, etc.), B2 (normal combustibility, like timber), and B3 (easily ignited - like polyurethane foam). The reason for this is that the basis of it all is building codes. You differentiate combustible from non-combustible construction. As materials evolved, these absolutes became less desirable. Flammability was quantified further, such as through ASTM E 84 flame spread ratings. As a result, certain organic items like plastic pipe, when made with fire retardants, can achieve lower flame spread than untreated ones, permitting their use even in otherwise non-combustible buildings, depending on the type of occupancy, building height, etc. NFPA calls it items of "limited combustibility" but then there is also outright flammability and being highly flammable, like automotive fuel. This differentiation makes it illogical to combine the two terms. --Achim (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Things that are combustible: they burn if there is a source of ignition present and stop burning if the ignition source is removed. Things that are flammable: they burn if there is a source of ignition present, then continue to burn when the ignition source is removed by creating (distilling) more flammable gases from the material. This is known as self-sustaining combustion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.84.128 (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose also, per previous two rationales. Njsustain (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose —178.134.118.245 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Flammable vs. Combustible
A Section Should be added clarifying Flammable vs. Combustible — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeWi (talk • contribs) 23:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Flammability and combustibility merge
In addition to the definition of "will smoulder or flame when heated" vs. "will flame when heated" mentioned in the previous merge discussion, and the solid/liquid/gas distinction, there are also the definitions based on flashpoint in the U.S. and Canada (, and have changed over time - ). These vary, but for example "combustible" might refer to any liquid with a flashpoint above 100°F, and "flammable" to any liquid with a flashpoint between 20°F and 100°F.

I think it would be easier to explain the differences between the various definitions and measurement techniques in a single article, called something like Combustibility and flammability. In several areas there is significant overlap, in addition to the fact that the distinction between the two is in some cases merely a matter of degree. In the cases where there is a qualitative difference, we might as well explain the distinction once rather than twice. -- Beland (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, I think one of these definitions controls labeling of consumer goods. If you look at solvents at the hardware store, you'll see "FLAMMABLE" and "COMBUSTIBLE", and e.g. Boston has ordinances that says how much of each can be stored in various types of buildings. This would be very useful to add to the combined article. -- Beland (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support merge to a new joint article such as Combustibility and flammability on the grounds that they significantly overlap and are best distinguished and discussed on the same page. Klbrain (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

America is illiterate
The prefix "in" originally meant to be, in, as in inflammable is the same as flammable. So why, now does insane apparently mean not sane, when really, technically insane should mean the same as sane. This country is backwards. We need to redefine not being sane as unsane. Governmentconspiracy101 (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the "in-" in "inflammable" and "in-" in "insane" are two seperate, unrelated prefixes. Ioe bidome (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I also fail to see how this proves America specifically as illiterate and not the English-speaking world as a whole, who use the exact same word. --Ioe bidome (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Industrial Hygiene and Ergonomics- Graduate Student Projects
— Assignment last updated by UCIHGrad18 (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)