Talk:Philadelphia Fire Department

New Emblem

• 
• 
• 
  http://www.phila.gov/fire/about/index_homepage.html

Has anyone seen this first emblem anywhere? I haven't ... where is this online?Philly jawn (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have seen it on some t-shirts. Since sometimes (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And there was a post on Phillyblog about it, too. Since sometimes (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Link? Philly jawn (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Foreign language names

• Spanish: http://www.phila.gov/fire/pdfs/Home%20Fire%20Safety%20Checklist%20-%2007.09%20%28Spanish%29.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6BpBjNxJq - Departamento de bomberos de Filadelfia
• Chinese: http://www.phila.gov/fire/pdfs/Home%20Fire%20Safety%20Checklist%20-%203.09%20%28Chinese%20-%20Mandarin%29.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6BpBSSBDu - 费城防火部门
• French: http://www.phila.gov/fire/pdfs/Home%20Fire%20Safety%20Checklist%20-%203.09%20%28French%29%20Revised.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6BpBntqCO - Département des Pompiers à Philadelphia
• Korean: http://www.phila.gov/fire/pdfs/Home%20Fire%20Safety%20Checklist%2007-09%20%28Korean%29.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6BpBUV2N9 - 필라델피아 소방국
• Russian: http://www.phila.gov/fire/pdfs/Home%20Fire%20Safety%20Checklist%20-%203.09%20%28Russian%29.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6BpBgRFux - Филадельфийский Пожарный Отдел
• Khmer: http://www.phila.gov/fire/pdfs/Home%20Fire%20Safety%20Checklist%2007-09%20%28Cambodian%29.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6BpBaS9mc
• Vietnamese: http://www.phila.gov/fire/pdfs/Home%20Fire%20Safety%20Checklist%2007-09%20%28Vietnamese%29.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6BpBX4RHY - Sở Phòng cháy Philadelphia

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Line of duty deaths

I am curious about the notability of Line of duty deaths and their inclusion in this article. To be clear, I by NO MEANS want to diminish the sacrifice or anything of that nature. The department I am close to just lost a firefighter last week. But I am curious if this merits inclusion. There are certainly some cases where they do. The Granite Mountain Hotshots for example, or the Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks. But in both cases those killed are not listed on the departments page, but in separate articles. I recommend not including this list in articles but would like to get other's input. --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The existing guidelines for stand-alone lists at WP:LISTN would seem to apply. A stand-alone list article is a good approach only if the deaths have been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources.—Stepheng3 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense to me...The PFD has not only lost a lot of firefighters but has had some significant incidents where multiple lives have been lost. In my opinion, that's notable in and of itself. Therefore, I could see moving both the "Firefighters Killed in the Line of Duty" and "Multiple Firefighter Fatality Incidents" sections from this page and to their own dedicated page. Maxwellwarner (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Line-of-duty deaths are a significant part of any fire department's history. Listing such fatalities and their causes in every such department's article may even help prevent the deaths (or injuries) of current and future firefighters just by informing them about the fatal mistakes made. Your subjective interpretation of Wikipedia's terms of use seems to pale in comparison to potentially saving firefighters' lives and preventing their injuries.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a statistics book, a shrine, a training manual for firefighters, etc. It is an encyclopedia. This is not about Wikipedia's "terms of service", this is about our inclusion guidelines. There is far more verifiable material out there then we would even dream of including. For example, we do not include the construction costs of various fire houses, lists of current or past firefighters, GVW of various engines, distances between various firehouses, nicknames for various companies, etc. While all of this material is available in reliable sources, including all of it would result in a bloated, unreadable article. Generally, the way we decide is coverage in independent reliable sources discussing the topic of the article in general. An article about a specific firefighter's death is not about the Philadelphia Fire Department, the topic of this article.

A blog by a "fire buff" listing all of the current and past fire houses he is aware of is not a reliable source. It is also not about the Philadelphia Fire Department, it is about one tiny aspect of the PFD.

The section "Firefighters Killed in the Line of Duty" should be trimmed to the three sentence summary at the beginning and moved to a section summarizing the history of the PFD. There is lots of other extraneous material as well. Mostly, the lists. It's all likely true and sourced or sourceable. It is, however, not encyclopedic content. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me for disagreeing, one who advertises his alleged PhD (no doubt in a liberal art). Your claims about inclusion criteria are not carved-in-stone facts, they are only your opinions and interpretations. You are merely a contributor to Wikipedia, as anyone who can write his name can be; you do not own it. My interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines is that a list of firefighter deaths and their causes does indeed belong in the referenced article, not just for the benefit of firefighters but also to educate the public. Said fatalities are not the meaningless trivia that your inexplicably angry post has compared them to. If you show me a specific Wikipedia rule or guideline that supports your position and debunks mine, I will no longer dispute your position. Further, you are correct about the firefighter buff's website not being an acceptable source, even though all of the information contained therein is accurate.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)