Talk:Firefighting apparatus

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2021. The result of the discussion was procedural close.

Trucks High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of trucks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Firefighting High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Disaster management High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Shades of green#Green-yellow|lime-yellow]] The anchor (#Green-yellow) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Duplication?

How is this different to fire engine and the information contained therein? --TBM10 (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant These articles overlap heavily, and even content hase been copied between them. I guess that Fire Engine should describe only pumpers, maybe tenders and ladders with a pump. This article should give an overview. Ladders should have an article of their own. The content is mostly focused on the USA, and because the situation there is not known to me, I cannot make these changes. e.g.: what is the definition of a fire truck? --Mopskatze (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:P.S.: I think this is the right way: import versions of the fire engines. Merge any useful text from this to fire apparatus. Then export the versions of the latter to fire ladder, removing all non-matching stuff. Remove all irrevelant stuff from fire engines. --Mopskatze (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~On review, I do not know what I meant when writing that, I must have been too tired.~~ The problem is the Fire engine article, covering all kinds of vehicles. I actually prefer that stuff with an article of its own is only described to the minimum extent. --Mopskatze (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh, now I see the problem again: the entire history section has been copied between them in one piece. User:Owain.davies, User:Zackmann08 and others have been arguing (too nice a word) about the structure and definitions.[1] --Mopskatze (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mopskatze: "have been arguing"??? You referenced a diff from over 2 years ago... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes, I know this is a dead discussion, but it was referenced in a current AfD) Fire engine should not discuss vehicles unless they are 1) land mobile, 2) have an internal water tank of some capacity, and 3) have a pump. I would argue that it could properly exclude apparatus that have a primary role as a tender or tanker as well. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Train Section Removed. Why?

Why was the fire train section of this article removed? There is proof that fire trains exist. There are reasons that they are out there. They are prevalent in Switzerland, Russia, and in some territories of the United States, currently being used by BNSF, and once used by the Southern Pacific railroad. JokerFan45 (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Fire engine with Firefighting apparatus

Procedural close from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefighting apparatus. See below for the discussion. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Wrong forum, obviously using WP:AfD for wp:merger discussion. Will move the discussion. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firefighting apparatus

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a large overlap between this article and Fire engine. While there is some good content here, it would be much better if it were merged into the Fire engine article. Or alternatively delete Fire engine and merge its content here. Either way there should only by one article where there are currently two. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

… none of which involves deletion, an adminstrator hitting the administrator-only delete button. You, or indeed any editor without even your privileges as an account-holding editor, could do everything that you've stated above, in fewer edits in fact than the series of edits necessary to make an AFD nomination. And not only are talk pages the things to use to gain consensus about merging duplicate articles, there's even an open discussion of this already at Talk:Firefighting apparatus#Duplication?. Uncle G (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the nominator does not provide a valid reason for deletion. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per WP:OVERLAP#2: substantial overlap. Neither of the three reasons in WP:NOTMERGE hold. Both articles have lower-medium lenght.Trimton (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think the articles are notable and that neither should be deleted without prior merging.Saturn Lover! (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fire engine. Frankly, I would have thought from the title that this referred to equipment rather than vehicles, but it does not. BD2412 T 00:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strictly speaking WP:SKCRIT#1 applies here. With no prior attempts at editing or discussion, I'm not sure why this wasn't just done boldly. Indeed in the absence of opposition it could probably still be done boldly and this discussion speedily closed. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The hierarchy may not be clear. A fire apparatus is an umbrella term that can denote a ladder truck, a fire engine, a specialized heavy rescue vehicle, a water tender, an aid car, or any number of special purpose vehicles. Trying to merge "apparatus" with "engine" doesn't make sense. If the article is unclear on that such that non-specialists might think merging the articles is a good idea, then it should be clarified, rather than merged. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move: to Firefighting equipment and brutally re-written. The main issue is my understanding of the definition.. ie (from a google result) "the technical equipment or machinery needed for a particular activity or purpose". In other words equipment (or which fire engines/tenders are a subset). So this article should not be restricting itself to vehicles' in my opinion. In all events don't delete and if redirecting/merging to Fire engine allow for a later redirect. Show not have been brough to AfD for reasons given above. There may or may not be content worthy of attributed copying. 07:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 2021-04-04T07:57:45 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Weak support merge: The problem is multiple problems. THe essential issue is the entity "Firefighting equipment" covers portable firefighting equipment, fixed firefighting equipment, and firefighting vehicles (itself divided into say land, sea, and air vehicles). It is a question in which article each of these articles should be covered and ensuring the name is appropriate. I decided to very reluctantly support some some of merge of mess into mess as stepping stone to how firefighting equipment (broadly construed) can be improved and covered with an appropriate set of articles. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Being a firefighter I know the terms. An engine is any fire truck, including pumper, brush, fast attack, and ladder truck. An apparatus, unless talking about Breathing apparatus (SCBA), is an engine. Prairie Astronomer ^Talk 19:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With respect if you know the terms then please can you source them and ensure the terminology is global. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - merges are useful when one or both articles are little more than stubs, i.e., not enough content to justify full articles. Or, when two articles have largely duplucate content. That doesn't appear to me to be the case with this article, but, having said that, any redundant material about fire engines in this article can be reduced and a "See main article" box with a link to fire engine added. Seeing, though, that fire engines are only a subset of firefighting apparatuses, that the broader category is notable and worthy of encyclopaedic coverage, and that fire engines are due enough coverage to warrant their own article, I oppose any mergers of these subjects. Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?

 "Colonial laws in America required each house to have a bucket of water on the front stoop during fires at night."

I assume it means that any house with a fire in a stove during the night was required to have a bucket of water on the stoop in case a fire broke out (which wouldn't work well in the winter anyway). Either that or for some reason they were expected to only have a bucket of water available when a fire broke out in the town somewhere, for the use of the bucket brigade. But this doesn't explain why this would only be necessary at night, nor how the inhabitants were supposed to know when a fire had broken out. The bucket brigade only needs buckets of water at night time? All I know is that it reminds me of requirements I have read of that demand any house with an overnight fire to keep a bucket of water or sand on hand in case a fire breaks out in the house during the night, due to the difficulty of getting together a bucket brigade quickly when everyone is asleep. On the stoop would be a good place in the summer, and often cooking stoves would be kept lit all day and banked at night, even in the summer. All houses would have fires at night in winter, but leaving the water outside wouldn't work because it would just freeze. Sand was usually considered more effective because it didn't freeze or spill or evaporate.

64.223.122.39 (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]