From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Move (rename) proposal

I wouldn't really know which is correct, but "firefighting" returns about 5.8 million Google hits, whereas "fire fighting" returns about 7.8 million Google hits. Philip J. Rayment 08:04, 7 March 2008 (EST)

What was wrong with moving it? Google hits are good for general observations, but in this case "firefighting" is definitely the more correct term; at least it's how i've always seen it spelled. Google's algorithim gives results without the space when you search for "fire fighting" so the numbers can be misleading. Plus some pages may have nothing to do with firefighting and only have the words "fire" and "fighting" in separate places. Fantasia 19:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

There may be nothing wrong with moving it (done properly, rather than cutting and pasting).
I've just tried running the Google search again (you are correct that "fire fighting" returns results which include "firefighting"), and get quite different figures (perhaps I have some settings different now?). But "fire fighting" still comes out on top:
  • firefighting: 3.34 million hits
  • "fire fighting": 4.16 million hits
  • firefighting -"fire fighting": 3.09 million hits
  • "fire fighting" -firefighting: 3.80 million hits.
However, I agree that Google is only a general observation, and doesn't make it right. I note that you said that "firefighting" is "definitely" the more correct term, then appear to undermine that by giving the impression that you only say that because that's what you are used to.
It could well be that one term is preferred in some countries and the other in other countries, although I did note in the Google search that both terms were used on official web-sites in Australia! For example this page of the NSW Rural Fire Service uses "fire fighting", whilst this page of the same web-site uses "firefighting".
Perhaps there is no "correct" way, and both are in general use?
Anyway, my point is that you haven't really made the case that it should be moved, although neither am I claiming that the current title is necessarily the more correct one.
Philip J. Rayment 23:32, 26 June 2008 (EDT)


I had no hand in the original article so I don't want to amend it arbitrarily....but I have misgivings about the definition: "Firefighting is the act of extinguishing a fire." That assumes success. (It can also include damping a campfire or barbecue.) Whilst most fires are indeed put out by the fire fighters, there are a heck of a lot that are fought for the sole reason of containment. Where I live, every summer sees bushfires that threaten whole towns and are fought desperately with varying degrees of success. I think the definition should be something like: "Firefighting is the attempt to minimise injury or loss of life, or damage to property, caused by a fire, either by extinguishing the fire or ensuring its containment."

Any ideas? AlanE 16:52, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Sounds good. Go ahead. Philip J. Rayment 02:51, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks...have done. (Another case where I have had to wait from the middle of the afternoon till now - 4AM - to edit....I know it's not your fault.) AlanE 14:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

How about Fire Prevention?

Fire fighting (or firefighting) is all well and good, but somewhere in here fire prevention should be mentioned. Fire inspections to find and prevent causes of fire before they are lit can prevent fires from starting - which is lots cheaper but nowhere near as exciting as fighting fires. PaulBurnett 09:50, 28 December 2009 (EST)