Talk:Glossary of firefighting terms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which collaborates on fire service-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

System message pointed out this article was over 30KB, so I split it into two, the other list being the new Glossary of firefighting equipment. This also makes room if someone wants to start adding photographs of selected items of equipment (in the other article). Lupinelawyer 00:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Lupinelawyer, I added a few defs but my fire background is in wildland fire, not structural...so I think I'll let you or others finish filling in everything here. However if pics would make a good addition I can add some to the Glossary of wildland fire terms article when I get a chance to scan them. Kaibabsquirrel 05:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since this is just a list of definitions, do you guys think maybe it belongs in the wiktionary? Shaggorama 20:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly all the terms and definitions belong in wiktionary too, but I didn't know wiktionary generally supported glossary structures (other than appendices of placenames, and the like). Tell us more. Lupinelawyer 01:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

you may have a point, I don't think the wiktionary is glossary-friendly.Shaggorama 23:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaimer

So I've noticed a common theme in fire/resuce articles which is highlighted by this article: different departments often have different terms for the same thing. Moreover, a term shared by two departments may mean different things to each (see the talk page for Rescue squad for a frustrating example).

This in mind, I think it might be nice if we clarify department specific definitions. For instance, The RIT article currently favors the term FAST, and my county has changed the name to RIG. If I were to throw up a definition for "Rapid Intervention Group" on this page, it might be more informative perhaps to say "1)synonym for Rapid Intervention group, implemented by Montgomery County SOP as of 2005." If it becomes apparent (i.e. a list of departments forms behind a term), we can refer to it as a commonly used term. If all else fails, let's try and move idiosyncratic variations into the mroe commonly used definitions (e.g. list RIG and FAST as synonyms for RIT, and have "see RIT" in definitions for both.

Do you guys think this is feasible, or has the glossary taken the structure it currently has because most people who use department relative terms may not know how uncommon they are?Shaggorama 00:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Using the terms "RIT" "RIG" or "FAST" is a good example of how terms differ. In my area we call this the "RIC" for "Rapid Intervention Crew". And we have done so for many years.

[edit] "Terms" vs "Equipment"?

I have noticed a number of equipment entries occur this article (backflow preventer, hard line, wye), even though there is a separate Glossary of firefighting equipment article. We really don't need to have equipment terms on this list, except perhaps equipment used in the fire service that is not specific to fire fighting, or terms that define equipment use or condition (e.g., high-rise pack, charged line). Maybe we should just bump them over when they arrive? Thoughts? Lupinelawyer 07:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)