Talk:Fuze

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Per my checking of sources for the lede...and tagging "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)