Talk:Underwriters Salvage Corps (Cincinnati, Ohio)

Should this page be categorized as a fire department?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

---

This discussion originally took place on a user talk page. It has been moved here to maintain context and history.

First of all, my bad! I didn't realize I had done that before. Please don't think I tried to sneak that in there. I honestly just missed it. Second, while the building is used to store equipment for the Salvage Corps, as far as I can tell the, corps are not and were not a fire department. Plus, either way the building is no longer in use by the department. Additionally, these categories (Category:Fire departments of the United States) across the board are used exclusively for categorizing actual fire departments. I'm been slowly working through redoing every department page in the US (see User:Zackmann08 for my WIPs) and this is the only page I have come across that is categorized in this fashion. There are other buildings and even active stations that have pages, but they are not categorized as being departments. To draw a parallel lets look at baseball (mainly because I am watching a game at the moment... ), if we look at Category:Major League Baseball teams, using your argument it would seem to be that AT&T Park (where the San Francisco Giants play) would need to go in that category... It is a building in use by the team. But the category specifically says teams just like the category we are talking about specifically says departments. Anyway, you have WAY more experience that I do at this but would really like to pick your brain and see if we can't come to a good consensus. Hope you are having a great day. --Zackmann08 (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the article, the corps "were accorded the same status as official firefighters while at fire zones." Why should they not be considered a fire department? Meanwhile, as I see it, there's a big difference between your example and this one: this article covers both the building and the category. Let's say that we don't have much information about the Giants and their park, just enough to write one short article covering both: wouldn't we categorise it under both trees? The same thing's true with church articles: for example, the Apostolic Bethlehem Temple Church, half a mile away, is categorised both for the building (e.g. "Gothic Revival churches in Ohio") and for the congregation (e.g. "Pentecostal churches in Ohio"). Shouldn't this be the same way? Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Yes but in your example both categories describe churches... I understand mine was not a perfect analogy, I was attempting to draw a parallel. And while "accorded the same status as official firefighters while at fire zones", that doesn't make them firefighters or members of a fire department. The Chief of Staff to the POTUS has the equivalent ranking of a four-star general but you would never categorize them as being a ranking member of the armed force. Being accorded a rank/position in certain scenarios is not the same as BEING that rank/position. Additionally, that still doesn't address the issue of the fact that no where else on Wikipedia is anything besides actual fire departments, with engines, hose, etc. categorized as being in a department. I respect that we have differing opinions. I don't think either of us are going to change eachothers mind so I will open an RfC on the page. --Zackmann08 (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That's too much work. If you file a request for a third opinion, I will abide by the decision. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Not offering a third opinion, or weighing in about this section's topic. I'd simply suggest having/moving this discussion to the article's proper discussion forum, its talk page. That way, other interested editors can see the discussion and participate. It's far less likely anyone will see it here. Someone may decline the third opinion request, because from my experience, the process generally doesn't handle disputes in the user namespace. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion Looking at the other pages such as Underwriters Salvage Corps (St. Louis) and New York Fire Patrol, which existed until 2006 even, as a firefighter myself I feel that the WP:COMMONSENSE definition of a fire department is different from what Underwriters Salvage Corps (Cincinnati, Ohio) was, and would be better served by being listed in the Firefighting history category, but not as an actual fire department, as it wasn't. The best analogy I can think of would be an auxiliary in that they assisted the actual fire departments, and - speculating here - they likely were given firefighter status on the fireground for insurance & ease of access reasons. Can be thought of the same as arson investigators employed by fire departments in some jurisdictions having law enforcement authority as it relates to a scene, but at the same time they're not considered police officers. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 01:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@RegistryKey: Many thanks for your thoughts! (@Nyttend:) --Zackmann08 (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Understood, and I'll withdraw my opposition. RegistryKey, thanks for your input. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Closing statement: This page is not specifically about a fire department, so it is not being categorized as such.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)