This is an archive of past discussions about Ambulance. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Anyone that can write something about why the text "Ambulance" is mirroredreversed on front of ambulance vehicles?
So when viewed in a rear-view mirror, it will appear as it does normally.
While reading "Ambulance" in the rear-view mirror may not provide any useful information to the public (as the lights and sirens should be enough to get them to pull over), the label is useful to commanders of large scale incidents. While sitting in a command vehicle attempting to coordinate incoming units, being able to quickly identify the ambulance is useful to quickly direct it to the patient.
I don't know; I have to go with the first answer here because officers will not necessarily be sitting in a command vehicle. For smaller scenes, command officers will be fulfilling multiple duties (somtimes including patient care) and will frequently not have the luxury of waiting in a vehicle. Further, there is no gaurantee the the ambulance will approach the scene from behind the command vehicle. At larger scenes, the liklihood of a staging officer spending a lot of time in a vehicle and using her mirrors to identify incoming units is pretty remote. She's going to be out on her feet, directing traffic, collecting and coordinating information, etc. Apart from everything else, working with all of the organizational paperwork of a large scene is difficult to do in the front seat of a vehicle (and again, her vehicle is not gauranteed to be facing the same direction as any incoming units). Finally, the staging officer will likely want to know whether the incoming ambulance is ALS or BLS (where both service levels exist, which admittedly is not everywhere); merely knowing that a unit is an ambulance doesn't provide her with enough information.
But, given your point about the lights and sirens being enough to make people pull over, why do ambulances wear a backwards label on their front ends? Many drivers are not very observant, and fail to notice an emergency vehicle until it is close behind them. Once an ambulance is close behind another vehicle, the driver of that leading vehicle may not be able to see the ambulance's flashing lights (or hear the siren, if the leading vehicle is well insulated, the radio is on, the heater is blowing at full blast, etc). Seeing "ambulance" in the rear-view mirror - written forward, when everything in the mirror is expected to be backward, can make an impression on that driver, prompting him to let the ambulance by. Or then again, maybe not; some people pull over, others simply refuse to do so. <sigh>
A question I don't have the answer to is why do ambulances have a backwards label on their front ends, but other emergency vehicles don't?
And, I think it should be pointed out that while I know that the USA places this label on thier ambulances, not everyone does.
I've seen a fire engine with "fire" mirrored on TV once, but more common on ambulances here in Denmark too. Maybe it's concidered the most important vehicle?
Also many "civil" vans use the trick - i.e. craftsmen and other company vehicles high enough to be seen thru a rear view mirror G®iffen19:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
It functions to identify the vehicle to other drivers when looking in their rearview mirror when they can not see the vehicles emergency lights because of glare, position, etc, but can hear the siren. For example an ambulance following a car with a small rear window will have it's roof mounted lights above the top of the window & it's grille mounted lights below. This was more common in the begining when few, if any, lights were used (early ambulances often had only a sign, unique color, & a bell or gong), but it still happens often enough to be of value. It is becoming more common on other emergency vehicles. These vehicles use wording such as- emergency, police, sheriff, fire, rescue, & fire-rescue. It is used in Australia, US, UK, Germany, Canada, & South America. In addition it is partly tradition going back to the signs on early ambulances.--Davus32106:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
First civilian ambulance
The first civilian ambulance is said to have been set up in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, in September 1892... Do references back this up? On a quick search I've found at least two claims that appear to predate this:
The first ambulance service in the United States was created in Cincinnati in 1865 at Cincinnati General Hospital.[1]
Bellevue Hospital in New York City is credited with establishing the first hospital-based civilian ambulance service in the United States. The horse-and-buggy teams were organized by Dr. Edward L. Dalton in 1869.[2]
Since I can't see any supporting evidence to the claim for Queensland (who don't seem to be making the claim themselves[3]), I've deleted it. Zoganes 11:40, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
I came across this article while doing an NPOV-check. An anon IP had blanked the graf about the Israeli armoured ambulance. Since that is likely the cause of the NPOV tag, I restored that graf. I also corrected the NPOV tag... since the dispute is likely related only to that section, I changed the tag to {{SectNPOV}}, which is the correct tag in this case. Feco 19:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am highjacking this item to say that I found an NPOV section tag on the "private ambulance company" section. I think it should have been an accuracy tag, and perhaps a last-person-to-edit-doesn't-speak-English-very-well tag. As ambulance services are something that I happen to know a fair bit about (in the U.S., at least), I have slightly corrected and noticeably expanded the content, fixing the minor grammar bits as I went. If anyone thinks it still deserves the NPOV tag that I removed, then please post WHY in this space.
Re: bus as a term for ambulance
Some 'medics may consider this term to be derrogatory, but I haven't met any who do. Personally, I'm not a fan of "vanbulance," but there it is. I've changed the comment so that it continues to reflect the dislike that some folks have for the term, but also indicates that this feeling is not universal. --Badger15123:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The term 'bus' is actually commonplace in the metropolitan New York City area. I revised this comment to add this information, because Fire, Police, and EMS workers in the NYC area use this term frequently with no derragatory connotations (e.g., if you listen to the NYPD radio, you may hear "We need a bus over here...", which is their radio lingo for "Send me an ambulance...").
--FireRescueLieut06:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
A number of my non-professional volunteer colleagues now call our Ambulances 'buses' and it is a recognised slang but not derogatory term. It has fully replaced ambulance in my vocabulary after I began working with an FDNY trained paramedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbearbear83 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless I missed it, there is no mention of "bus" as slang in the article. Was it there before? Someone proposing adding the mention to the article? The term goes back at least 25 years (it was in common use then - "rush the bus", "get a bus" etc) and definitely was not derogatory. --192.77.126.50 (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the term is derogatory it's refers to the ambulance as nothing more than a means of transportation. If I'm correct it was started by firefights as a put down to medics and it goes hand and hand with the term ambulance driver. Having stated that it is also true the term is becoming more commonly used by medics in some services but in other services it is still offensive. So if this term is added to the article I suggest that it be noted a controversial and is region dependant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MedicPCP (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Skills once reserved for 'medics...
Defibrillation may be the best example of a skill once reserved for medics that is now a BLS skill (actually, if you go all the way back, doctors thought that not even 'medics could be successfully taught to defibrillate.) A large part of this is due to the development of the AED, but at least as far back as 1999 the state of Rhode Island licensed me, and many others, as Basic EMTs, to manually defibrillate adult patients and to intubate adult patients as well - see their protocols; I expect that Rhode Island still does this. Practicing these skills required the successful completion of optional classes beyond the standard EMT-Basic curriculum, but we were still Basics; becoming an Intermediate required even more schooling, and granted additional skills. Many Basic EMTs can also give medications - epinephrine (adrenaline) for anaphylaxis is a common example (see the protocols for New York State or Rhode Island, or I expect for many other states, too.) Nebulised albuterol is another example. --Badger15104:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I some countries, even non-professional volunteers can be trained to perform with semi-automatic defibrillators (I am, for instance). Rama09:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Car-based ambulances?
Shouldn't this article have stuff about car-based ambulances, like the Cadillac conversions?
That's a good point. Probably there should be a mention of air ambulances, too, though perhaps they deserve (or have?) their own page. --Badger15119:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Structure
The structure of this article is somewhat haphazard - e.g. private and voluntary-run ambulances in the UK are dealt with in the section on ambulances in the UK, not in the separate private ambulances section, while that section reads very much as if it was written solely from the US perspective with a little info on France tacked on later.
I think the whole page needs a good tidy up to more carefully distinguish US and non-US information and to make it easier for people to (i) find info relevant to their location and (ii) add info for countries not already covered without having to worry about whether the info should all go in a country-specific section or be split between various headings.
Sadly I don't have the time or knowledge to do this re-write myself.
Hi. I see that there is an armoured and armed Merkava ambulance in service with the Israeli army. But is it marked with a Red Star of David or other Red Cross emblem? --GunnarRene13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Museum itemHere's an image of a museum model of an earlier Israeli medevac vehichle. It sports a Red Star of David (althogh faded) and a machine gun, though the main turret has been removed. The red star of David is not actually recognized as an Emblem of the Red Cross, so its use on an armed vehichle might not be technically illegal, but I certainly see a huge potential for confusion here, and I don't like it. --GunnarRene15:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's face it. Does any of Israel's enemies care if any vehicle is an ambulance or not? In the recent 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, tanks were frequently used as ambulances and no one bothered to paint any emblem on them. Otherwise, FWIW, the red star of David is now a recognized emblem while included in the humiliating Red Crystal.--Shuki21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Right. I've read up on the Red Crystal before asking the above. So in essence, the exterior of a medevac Merkava is mostly the same as other Merkava variants? But how do Israeli soldiers know the difference? Is there a tactical marking on it, or do they just know which tank numbers in their units are medevac?
It's hard to prove a negative; I've looked through lots of Merkava images, and found none with the MDA marking on them. But untill there is authorative information that the armed Merkava are not marked with the MDA or Red Crystal, I think the article still can't categorically state that they ARE NOT marked. The earlier version seemed to imply that Israel was doing something wrong by medevac'ing in an armed vehichle, but that happens all the time when there's no regular ambulance around. (If somebody in the platoon gets injured they'd be taken back in a normal tank, M113, Hummer or other armed vehichle and transfered into a proper ambulance.) There's no law against using an armed vehichle for medevac, what's illegal is to mark it with the protected symbols. --GunnarRene21:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the issue is. If the plain red star of david is not a 'protected emblem' then what is the difference of painting this on a tank or painting a red smiley :-). What would be illegal about this? I would understand the illegal painting of a red cross on a combattant vehicle, and I can assure you that there are NO merkavas with red crosses painted on them. As for identifying them, I cannot vouch for the reported turret-less tankbulance outfiited with medical equipment, but rather the regular tanks that have much of their ammo removed to make space internally for medical personnel and casulaties. These are regular tanks for all intents and purposes. --Shuki22:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is turning into me expressing myself instead of improving the article. If there was some source who categorically said that they did not mark the armed medevac vehichles, then that would be good. But what the article says now is fine in either case.
I've only seen model shots of the medevac Merkava. Those converted for medevac remain fighting vehichles too.
The issue is that Israel wants to use the red star as an official symbol, and although it is not an official Red Cross emblem, the red star is still recognized as the common emblem of the Israeli national society. So if Israel continued to use the red star on armed vehichles it would create confusion about the nature of the vehichles.--GunnarRene22:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Example: The French ambulance on the right. This ambulance has a large Red Cross on its back door (barely visible because it's open), but observe the tactical marking to the right of the door. That is the standard unit marking of a medical vehichle (though it would look slightly different if it followed NATO standard APP-6a). So the Israeli medevac Merkavas could have those kinds of markings without carrying a red crystal, Star of David, or whatever. --GunnarRene22:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering that Israel's enemies have repeatedly attacked non-combatant vehicles only a fool would worry about the ICRC and their silly games. If the Muslims can have an overtly religous Red Crescent on their ambulances, they should extend the same recognition to the Israelis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.180.83 (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss your particular view of this, or any other subject. This is to discuss the article and how to improve it. We report facts not opinions! OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 05:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Bambulance
I'm not an editor, and I'm not sure if this is encyclopedia-worthy, but should there be a section on the term bambulance? A quick google search should reveal the meaning and origin. Maybe it requies an article of its own? Maybe nothing. Just wondering. I came here for info after hearing the word in a conversation, and found nothing.
What is it? A Boston ambulance? The story about the guy with a deer in his car calling 911? The Bambulance League (Baseball)? I'd say not worthy for inclusion unless we the commedian that made it allready has an article. --GunnarRene02:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
What's the story about the deer calling 911? That sounds interesting. --Badger151 (talk)
Photos
As the photo of the 1964 police cruiser illustrates, ambulances have changed over the years. Does anyone have either the date that any of the article's photos were taken, or the in-service date of the apparatus pictured? A retirement date might also be useful. --Badger15123:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me the layman the color of the medical professional. Think hospitals (I'm sure some of them are trying warmer, fuzzier-feeling colors now), docs, nurses. Xiner03:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Tradition, the first horse drawn ambulances were painted white or light gray to visualy set them apart from other vehicles. Also white vehicles are more visible at nights when illuminated by headlights. For lots of info on ambulance design and constuction history read "The American Ambulance 1900-2002" by Walter M.P. McCall.--Davus32107:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
New regulations, at least in Ireland mean all Ambulances are bright yellow. Apparently this is so that they do not get confused with Garda (Irish police force) vans and get attacked. This is inconclusive as there have been a number of reported attacks on ambulances by stone throwing youths -- (User:Mrbearbear83) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbearbear83 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The regulations aren't coloured yellow so they do not get confused with Garda just in Irelan- they are coloured yellow as all ambulances in the EU have to be CEN compliant and therefore coloured "Euro Yellow RAL 1016" as it is apprently the most distinctive and highly visable colour for an ambulance, helping it to be noticed in rear view mirrors when blue lights may not be seen.See http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/mar/07/health.europeanunion for more details.Gbarnes 5 (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Most Ambulances in Asia are White with a highly visible stripe on the side of the Van. In the US the color Red is common for most Government Ambulances because of being part of Fire Department. But White is common for Hired Ambulance Companies and Hospital with a Ambulance in US. Saying "white" is common worldwide maybe unwise for now. We need to research and create a list. I made a sample list below and any one who wants to do the work? Can do it. Out of 203 Nations least have 80% of them on this research list. Double check you sources too.
Sample 3. Japan--|--City--|--White--|--Red or Orange--|--Unknown Color--|--Red lights--|
etc.
Listing more than one Nation many times is fine. But Ownership must be different. Such as Private, Township, City, State, and Government. If you don't have a any thing that shows the a color is common in that nation. List it as "unknown color". If the Nation has no Ambulance service at all. List it as "No Ambulance Service". We this list is finish with sources backing it up. Then we can create a chart that shows common colors. Please post you list off page and leave a link to your list.
I actually don't think that it would be useful as I could create a separate entry just for every service in the province of Ontario. Because of de-regulation, every service picks its own colours now, from white, to orange, to green, to blue, to red, to black. I'm also very wary about saying that most US ambulances are red when there is actually a wide variety of colours, as well as providers. I'm not sure of the statistics, but I would imagine that not more than 25% of US ambulance services are run by fire departments. Frmatt (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
This might not be in article at all. But useful data to others. Like to said you can list a nation more than one time if ownership is different. For sample... Your answers would be like this for a nation below.
State: Yellow
City: White
Private: Pink
So you have 3 answer for a Nation. This will even out a overall score for the worldwide and make nice pie charts. We will also see major Ownership overall colors. Gives use many extra answers. Red might be king in the US. But only at city level. US is harder to do a color survey also. I will save it US last...
The problem is that there are no "standard" colours in Ontario. Each service makes its own choices for colours, as do most places in the US. It seems to me that this is a lot of work for no results...especially given that this is all original research and as such would not be allowable under wikipedia rules. Frmatt (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It only a survey and it will not be posted as a official color use by any Nation.
This page seems well developed so I'm just wondering if anyone has suggested adding more on the history of ambulances? My understanding is that often undertaker vehicles were first used for ambulances...didn't take much of a google search to back that up
Found the following on this page http://www.toronto.ca/ems/overview/history.htm
The first use of ambulances for civilian purposes did not occur until after the American Civil War, when returning veterans began to provide this service to their communities on a voluntary basis. In Ontario, communities often relied on the local undertaker for this type of service; the undertaker often having the only transportation in town in which one could lay down. --Mazzmn13:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, there's some there, though more needs to be done, and I'm getting to it as I have time. Is anyone familiar with the research/legislation/events that are significant in the history of ambulances outside of the US? Finding good sources has proven difficult. --Badger15123:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Ambulances in the US
Scoop and Screw (Scoop and Carry, if you prefer) doesn't apply to all ambulance calls; in some cases we Stay and Play. The belief that all calls involve scooping the patient up and speeding off to the hospital is a common misconception, but hasn't been true for many years due to advances in the level of medicine that can be provided in the field. I also consolidated and removed some information that really pertained more to the EMT article than to ambulances --Badger15103:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be Swoop and Scoop. It refers to the monitoring of police frequency dispatches by the early mortuary-based ambulance services and their racing each other to the scene of an emergency ("swooping") to take the patient from the scene without rendering treatment, and before the other services could get there ("scooping"). Jfriesen10 (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Load and go is a more accurate term for modern EMS. In traumatic injury and other major conditions, time is of the essence. Most recommendations now are to provide only essential care, such as immobilization and airway management, and perform other skills such as IVs and pain control while in route to a trauma center, and with the advent of alternative access measures such as the EZ-IO and FAST1 IO system, this is now a very viable option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.203.182 (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
And none of these is potentially encyclopaedic, because they are all slang phrases, and may be difficult to back up with references. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 05:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ambulance/EMS
This article is including a lot of information that pertains to EMS, not to ambulances per se'. I've also noticed this tendency in some of the other EMS related articles. What do people think about creating country-specific EMS pages that discuss the details of each system, and removing this type of information from the Ambulance, EMT, etc pages? Doing so would allow for discussions of the tools of the trade without creating articles of extreme length. --Badger15121:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
EMS Emergency Medical Service is an polysemic term because it means in English Ambulance Jargon only the Prehospital Ambulance Service/Sytem and litterally all the chain of Emergency Medical Care Services we prefer to call IEMS (Public Health Integrated Emergency Medical System) . This article on Ambulance is much more international than Wikipedia EMS Article that is biased by ambulance anglosaxon personals Lobying and linguistic colonialism.--Miguel Martinez Almoyna (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Ambulance Manufacturers
On the bottom of the Ambulance page we have external links to Ambulance Manufacturers. I think that this is more so using Wikipedia as a source of advertising and should be taken off. Anyone else have thoughts or ideas about this? Thanks Eric03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay so from what I gather the consensus is that we delete the external links to Ambulance Manufacturers. I think we will give people the rest of today to bring up arguments that support the external links or else the external links to the Manufacturers will be deleted. Eric17:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of Pictures
We really need to get the Ambulance page cleaned up. Unless anyone has any objections I am going to be deleting 3 pictures off the Ambulance page. I will be deleting 2 of the pictures of an Air Ambulance and the other picture is a crest of an Ambulance Service. I will leave the pictures online for 1 more day to see if anyone has arguments against this and if there are none then the pictures will be delted because they are not appropriate to this article.
As there is only 2 pictures of Air Ambulances on the page I assume you are trying to delete them both. What makes you think they're not appropriate for an article on Ambulances? These aircraft are an integral and much used part of the ambulance services in many parts of Europe and they are, by definition, ambulances in their own right! Scancoaches 01:38 7 January 2007 (UTC)
These are the reasons why we are suggesting that the Air Ambulances & crest be removed. 1) The Ambulance page is 48 kilobytes long and according to the Wikipedia:Article Size guidelines we need to try to keep the articles under 40 kilobytes. 2) Pictures of Air Ambulances belong on the Air Ambulance article. That is like putting a picture of a Ford vehicle on the Chevy article just because it's a vehicle.
The page is headed Ambulance, not Ambulance (Vehicle). The Aircraft are Ambulances in their own right. Yes, I agree, Air Ambulance is the place for more descriptive pictures of ambulance aircraft, BUT with the main Ambulance page, there should be shown some examples of each type of Ambulance , NOT just the road vehicles.
Lets see what other people think.Scancoaches 02:14 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this is an Ambulance page, not an Ambulance (automobile) page - all ambulance vehicles: planes, trains, automobiles, motorcycles, ships, and helicopters are covered by this page's title. I believe that the reason that this page is so long is because it contains so much EMS info that does not directly pertain to ambulances: the differences between the skill set of a paramedic and that of an EMT are irrelevant for this page, for instance. Much of the country-specific information could be moved to country-specific pages, and probably should be. I've made similar observations on the EMT and EMS talk pages, as they are similalry overloaded.
As for deleting a helicopter picture, which one? Each helicopter picture is present not as an example of an air ambulance, but of an air ambulance belonging to a specific service. The same goes for the crests, though in this case, I suppose I could see removing both, rather than one, as being appropriate. I would also nominate the following images for removal, starting at the top of the article:
The Star of Life - I like having it there, but it doesn't add to the reader's understanding of the subject, and a link is provided. If we're removing images simply to free up space, then, I'd cut it.
The "Modern Day Advanced Life Support Ambulance" - The Mexican ambulance is, for our intents and purposes, modern and up to date, making this "Modern Day" image redundant. Also, the "Modern Day" image was the most recent to be added, and, in chosing between the two images, I'd rather go with the Mexican ambulance to represent more of the world.
If there's only going to be one image under Private Ambulance Companies, then it should be a modern ambulance that is shown, not one from 1967.
The "typical "squad truck" design for a fly car" depicts a fly car, not an ambulance. Agina, a link is provided, and the image is unneccessary.
The "Medium duty type ambulance" needs to be better tied into the text of the article. Compare its caption to those of the Type I, II, and III ambulances above it. --Badger15102:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with what you've said Badger151 and made a start. I've moved one of the Helicopter pictures and made it an example picture and not specific to a particular service. Of the 5 pictures you pointed out as unnecessary, I agree 4 should go but the Star of Life should stay as its rather a nice page header. As for the crests, I agree that, if one must go, then both should.Scancoaches 12:48 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I will go ahead and delete the two crests then as they are really a form of advertising for the company anyways.
I've tried to make the article as universal as possible, and removed duplication that appeared in the country specific sections. Because of that i propose to create separate articles on each of the ambulance services by country, to try and keep the main article length down. Anyone got any objections? I think it will make this a much more readable article.
--Owain.davies18:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Nobody objected when I made the same proposal in early December (see#Ambulance/EMS), so I think you can go ahead. There is already a page for the US: Emergency Medical Services in the United States. Once a few pages have been put together, it may become useful to put together a clearing house page or a category that enables users to quickly move form one country to the next.--Badger15122:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
UK/US English
There appears to be some confusion regarding which style of English should be used on this page. When I first found the article, it appeared to be mostly written in US English; this also appears to be true for most of the article's history - though I admit that my sense of what falls into US and what falls into UK English is not the best. My intent has been to keep the article consistent. Recently, another user believed that the article was written in UK English, and perhaps saw my edits as an attempt to change the article into a US-English article, and so reverted the changes I had made. I expect that he did so in good faith, and would have let things lie, except that he accidentally also reverted User:GunnarRene's edits at the same time. Rather than manually recreate GunnarRene's edits, I simply reverted the article back to what it had been after his (GunnarRene's) edits (the only other intervening edits were vandalism, and the reversion of that vandalism). --Badger15105:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Good Article nomination
Style and wording is mostly fine, images are fine, its neutral, its stable and its comprehensive enough for GA. There are however, a few 'blind spots' to be fixed:
Uncapitalize bluelinks in Ambulance functional types
Need references for military ambulance section
Otherwise, it checks out OK. I'll put it on hold till these are fixed.
Now that these issues have been addressed, I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. Well done!
To be honest, I wouldn't say it was too far from FA. You need to make any references that include just a website (like the ones you added) to complete full in-line citations. You might also want to have a look at the way things are worded. Otherwise, a very good job! Thanks, Smomo21:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Well done and thanks to all the article contributors. Let's make the last bits of clean up before submitting for Featured Article! Owain.davies21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You might also consider having a peer review of this article before submitting it to FAC in order to get a more comprehensive list of the things that need doing. Smomo22:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
New entry under "The first motorised ambulances" section
I have reservations about the accuracy of this information - there are clearly factory built ambulances before this, previosuly referenced above, and i'm struggling to see what new information this brings. Maybe it requires rewording? Owain.davies07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've looked up and down this page and the artical and find no mention of earlier automobile based ambulances that were factory designed and built to be offered for commercial sale. Much like the Model T, the 774 may not have been the first ever, but it was the first regular production model.--Davus32108:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The references are for the use of motorised ambulances (both designed and built in a factory for this purpose) in 1899 (Chicago) and 1900 (NYC) - sourced from Barkley 1990 (see ref list on the page). As they were designed and built in a factory, and sold commercially, your reference from McCall seems not to make much sense, as this model is obviously not the first. I appreciate it's a sourced reference, but either i'm misinterpreting the way this is written, or it doesn't add much to the article.
I would question whether it's of value because we can show that there were earlier commercially made ambulances in the US, and earlier mass produced ambulances in other countries (the Straker-Squire). On that basis, it might merit a mention, but not a whole paragraph.
I might have missed the important point here, and if so, could we reword your contribution so it's less confusing? Thanks for your input Owain.davies08:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
A Direct quote from the article "These first two automobile ambulances were electrically powered with 2hp motors on the rear axle.[16]", they were electric and not gasoline powered, while most people would consider automobile to mean internal cumbustion powered. Also Commercialy sold refers to non-custom (AKA Stock) models, not custom designs (Chicago & NYC), experimentals, etc- basicaly not where someone went to the manufacturer and had a limited number built, but rather a standard desing in a catalog that you could order. They were also the first in the U.S. to be mass produced. Ths caption for the picture on pg 13- "...introduced the first commercially produced gasoline-powered auto ambulance in the United States.--Davus32109:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, that makes sense now. I think it would be worth bringing those points out a bit more in the article about internal combustion power and being a stock item, it would reduce confusion (certainly mine!) Owain.davies09:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I was about to add some to my comment above, so here goes- Referencing the Model T comment, you could go to a factory and have them design & build you a custom car or you could just say "get me a Model T."--Davus32109:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Citations
I have removed the following text from the references section. It used to be immediately below the section header:
<!--
This article uses the Cite.php format. Instructions for adding footnotes:
After adding an inline citation in the article, add the source inside of Reference tags.
Example:<ref>Author. "[URL Story name]". Publication. Date. Date Retrieved.</ref>
The reference will then add itself to the footnote section.
-->
I removed the text because, although the reference style described did match all of the citations on the page, the citation style has been changed, and these instructions are no longer correct. I am not familiar with the new citations style, but I hope that someone who is can update these instructions and replace them. --Badger15120:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, probably my fault - i've never looked at that section before because I use all in-line citations! The citation style in the article now uses the Citation templates style (Wikipedia:Citation templates) as it provides the most flexibility. I have inserted a replacement paragraph in the article to reflect this. Hope it clears up the confusion. Regards Owain.davies22:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:FIRELOGO.gif
Image:FIRELOGO.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
I don't know how wildly the euphemism is used but in Britain the vehicles that undertakes use for transporting cadavers around are also sign-written as 'Private Ambulance.' They are nearly always black and windowless. Also, they have non of the usual emergency lighting - as they are not emergency vehicles. I suppose a similar note ought to go on the hearse article as well. First I was wondering how common this practice is?--Aspro (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I was just on here to bring up the lack of info on the old body collectors. They are black because they are usually owned (In the UK at least) by Corroners and funeral home. There is no mention of private ambulances of this type nin the article and this should be adressed. I imagine that most of the western world would have some one to collect dead bodies and this method seems most logical. they aren't Hearses because the 'passengers will normally be bagged and possibly shelved depending on its design.(Morcus (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC))
Whilst it is certainly true that there are black 'private ambulances' (some, worryingly, with emergency beacons on) in the UK, it is by no means applicable to all coroners or funeral home vehicles. At a personal guess, i'd say that less than 10% of these types of vehicle are marked this way. I'm sure that in the past the article has mentioned it, and I think it may be worth a sentence, but probably no more, and i'd be keen to point out that these do not techincally meet the definition of an ambulance. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 07:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I did this the wrong way round. I will post this on the hearse article in the hope that someone there has inside knowledge. Then, it should be easier to add something short and precise on this article. For instance, whilst these vans may not be ambulances as we understand the term, naming them as such alters their 'legal' status as well. For example, they are often excused from normal parking restriction when being used for the purposes of picking up and unloading. Also, in a quick look through, this article indicates that crews may not be wearing seat-belts (a legal requirement for other road users in some countries) but there are also other activities that they are permitted to do (like parking in restricted areas) and some things, that whilst not permitted, law enforcement officers choose not to bring prosecutions. For instance, in Britain, emergence vehicles are required by law to stop at all 'red lights' but in practice, law enforcement officers choose not to bring prosecutions when this law is breached. Adding something along these lines would help give a 'man from Mars' a better understanding that an ambulance is more than just a sum of its parts.--Aspro (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
What about mentioning the equipment of ambulances? There is thousand photos of ambulance cars in the article, but no word about what is usually inside... :(.--Kozuch (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Ambulances vary from state to state, and county to country, on what is required or used. In a lot of cases, what is required by the governmental regulations is exceeded as EMS providers move towards gold standard care ,rather than provding base care. A Basic unit is not going to have the same as a critical care unit, and an american ambulance is not going to have the same as an Advanced Practicioner Paramedic in Canada or an Ambulance in France which carries an actual physician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.203.182 (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Wondering whether or not the reference to the star of life should be removed or modified as the star of life only has significance in the US? Frmatt (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
That's not really true, it is widely used across the world, including the UK and Canada, making up the largest of the english speaking countries, and although it originated in the US, the usage is certainly not limited to there. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 07:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? I've never seen it used prominently in Canada, and I know that it doesn't have the legalities associated with it up here that it has in the US. Okay...was just curious anyways! Frmatt (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It probably veries by operator, and you're right, the legalities are different outside the US, but for example look at the picture on the right, taken in Montreal, where you can see the star of life on the front and side of this ambulance. I think it's becoming fairly universal. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 07:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have some concerns about this photo being used as it depicts an actual patient. I agree that it technically falls within the legal boundaries of use, but I know that I wouldn't want my photo from a very embarrassing incident displayed in a very public forum for future use. Having it buried in a government website is one thing, but having it publicly displayed as part of a fairly unrelated WP entry makes me somewhat nervous. If it would be suitable, I will take a photo showing a similar situation, but use people who are not patients and who are fully aware that their photo will be posted to WP. Frmatt (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Why was this link changed from Certified first responder back to First responder??? First responder is a completely useless article with no information whatsoever, while Certified first responder contains lots of informative and useful data, while First responder is an article which contains two paragraphs, BOTH of which reference SOLELY U.S. laws, so the reason of undoing U.S.-centric information makes no sense at all. I'm not entirely sure that your reasoning behind removing the information about the types of ambulances qualifies as US-Centric either. While I have no problem removing the Ford reference (though Ford ambulances are shipped around the world, one example is this program in the Province of Quebec: http://www.demers-ambulances.com/index.php?sectionId=51&lang=en) and I will agree that the information is specific to North America (and is specifically based on http://apps.fss.gsa.gov/vehiclestandards/framedoc1.cfm?DocName=KKK-A-1822F-08.01.2007.pdf&fedcode=1822&Document=yes&commentStatus=1&docType=Final from the US Government), I don't see where else we can put it. It is information that I believe is important and of general interest, especially to those in emergency services. Frmatt (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Frmatt - I changed this back to first responder, because the title 'certified first responder' only exists in the United States. I can see that the article is not great. For the time being, i'll blind link to 'certified first responder' with 'first responder' as the title due to the overlap, but putting a US only title in a global article is undue bias, although i may look at moving 'certified first responder' to a better title. The same goes for the types of ambulance - this type 1-4 system is only in the US, and doesn't reflect a worldwide view. Emergency medical services in the United States would probably be a better place for this information. Ironically, i didn't remove the Ford reference, as i thought that was fairly relevant as Ford is one of the world's largest manufacturers. As a general rule in these large, generic articles, anything that says 'In North America' or 'In Europe' etc. tends to lead to everyone putting in their own section, so you get 'In North America', 'In the United Kingdom', 'In Europe', 'In Australia' etc. which means you lose the flow of the article and it gets very messy, and usually eventually requires a complete rewrite.
i'll have a look
Hi owain.davies - First off, apologies for the tone in my earlier post...I'd just spent the day fighting a stubborn grass fire (wind kept pushing it back into places we'd already extinguished...ended up losing about 5 acres and had it go back 200 ft into the trees) and was exhausted...I'll try not to post when exhausted in the future!! As for certified first responder vs. first responder I honestly think that first responder should be deleted (I nominated it for deletion in the past but it got rescued) which would free up that title for the content from certified first responder (which is a relatively global article with emphasis on North America and the UK because their emergency medical service structures include First responders). I can understand your concern about making the types part of this article, but I'm also aware that Emergency medical services in the United States deals more with the social, political, and operational structures, while the types refer to the vehicle itself. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frmatt (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Point of view heavily skewered towards UK Ambulances
Nissan Japanese AmbulanceInside Japanese AmbulanceA group of Ambulances at a Thailand Airport Hospital. You see one Mercedes-Benz with many newer Toyota Ambulances.
This section is HEAVILY skewerded towards the point of view of the United Kingdom's EMS system. The section about personel is also heavily skewered, and includes levels and information that don't even pertain to American EMS staffing.
I've added in some additional information to this section, but the American EMS Providers really need to step up and do more to make this article about us as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.203.182 (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, this article is fairly well-balanced and doesn't refer specifically to any one country. The reason that it includes levels and information that don't even pertain to American EMS staffing is because Wikipedia resides on the internet, which is accessible by people from around the world. Because of that, it isn't appropriate to have an article about an emergency vehicle that exists around the world which is entirely U.S-Centric. People wanting to find out more about EMS in the US, should go to that article, which is the appropriate place for those comments. And frankly, as a Canadian EMS provider I'm pretty offended that you seem to think that the U.S. is the only other place in the world. Realistically, there's an entire continent that isn't represented in this article currently...anybody know anything about Ambulances in Asian countries? Frmatt (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Frmatt, I've reread the article to check, and what it does is to mention all types of level across vehicles, services and staff. Just because the levels mentioned don't exist in the US, doesn't mean they're not noteworthy or encyclopaedic. If you think any US levels are left out, then obviously feel free to add them, but i don't think they are. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 07:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I know about Ambulances of Asian countries. I know more about Japanese than the others. In my Asia Research and friends from Asian countries. Tells me that most Ambulances in Asia are redesigned Van Models from Japanese Companies such as Isuzu, Nissan, Toyota, and Mitsubishi. Anything that is a American Ambulance in Asia is US Military. Mercedes-Benz Ambulances is also in the area; But they are rare because Japanese Ambulance cost better.
I posted the picture on the right side to show Asian Ambulances. Also I can tell many things about these Ambulance designs, equiped, and personel. I would be gladly to write in a new worldwide section or help redesign the article. To give a basic view of a Ambulance then go by nations' different types and service. If other members agree to help me. I think we can better this Article 10 times better and show a worldwide basic view. Than being mostly about on nation.
I'm looking at the lead for this article, and I think that three paragraphs is a little long. I'm wondering if anyone would object strongly to my having a crack at re-writing it (while keeping as much of the content as possible...just moving it around a bit in the article. Frmatt (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I want to add things I know about Asian Ambulances if there is a rewrite. Like I said above.
I'm not particularly attached to the picture that's there, but it is a better picture overall than the one you replaced it with. Also, this is immediately adjacent to another picture of a van ambulance, and it would be good to maintain a diversity between ambulance vans and other vehicles. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 17:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
How is it better? It is one thing you have failed to explain. Again while it may have the ACT Ambulance Service markings it is not used to save lives unlike some of the non-vans that are in the article. One this that does seem to be lacking in the article is the role some Ambulance organisations (Whether private, government or volunteer) provide in rescues (This is used for most emergencies however I believe this may be only unique to NSW in Australia but I can't see why other counties wouldn't have some type of Ambulance rescue unit). Bidgee (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
How is it better? Well that is to an extent subjective, but enough so that three people have changed it back. There are elements of the photograph composition that could be improved. The role of ambulance services in rescue operations would probably be better covered in emergency medical services as that is about operations, whereas this article is about the vehicles themselves. Agree on the private service piece, although would still like to see something that isn't a van. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 09:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
There endless ways to illustrate this article. Let's be constructive and say what kind of vehicle it should be. Even if none of these should cover the specific wish someone may take a new photo. --|EPO|da:16:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, like both of those. The second is a better picture, but the first shows a non-emergency ambulance, which we don't have that many of. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 11:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I like both of those photos. For this article the non-emergency vehicle might be better - the other photo might find a home at the fly car article, if there's room. Which ever photo is chosen, should it be an add to the article, or should it replace the present photo? --Badger151 (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I like to say 3 things. 1. I don't want too many pictures in a sub-article that can't fit the pictures within it. 2. I like us to limit pictures from a nations and departments. It silly to have like 3~6 pictures from one nation in the article that's a worldview topic. 3. Mass casualty units has their own topic in Ambulance bus. Some of these topics needs new articles for themselves; with only summary or link to that article with this one. Rasseru (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the First picture of the England Ambulance needs replace. Because there are a like 3~4 pictures later down are the same nation and same ambulance service. Rasseru (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
In general I think the article has a lot of photos from USA, Britain and Australia. Looks like non-anglo countries are not well represented. So I think my replacement of the first photo with one from Czech Republic suits well. --|EPO|da:17:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I could always add another East Asian Ambulance some where? That will remove a picture that too many from from Britain or Australia. The USA is ok with the pictures. Because they only have 2 picture in the article. Rasseru (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
US: 6 (includes counting both images of the '48 Cadillac, only one of which are needed)
Australia: 2
Austria: 2
Isle of Salk: 1
Sudan: 1
Germany: 1
Italy: 1
Japan: 1
New Zealand: 1
France: 1
St John's Ambulance, location not given, but not US or Canada: 1
Unspecified (tail lift): 1
I think that accounts for all of the photographs, including water and air vehicles. Large portions of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa are under-represented. --Badger151 (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a correction St John's and the tail lift is in the UK, also Australia has 3 images in total (1 ASNSW motorbike, 2 ACT Ambo). Bidgee (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Where are you counting 6 USA? There only 2 images that's shows a vehicle ambulance. Other than the ship and the Cadillac. With the other pictures that's are Sea or Air. We may remove the pictures and add them to the other ambulance articles. Useful data about that type should be moved to other article. I will have links that say bus, ship, motorbike, and etc will have links to those other ambulance articles. Clearly if any one reads this topic want to know more about a ambulances than what a bus is. OR change the whole article with text summary of what is "ambulance" with one picture of each type. Then give the vehicle ambulance it's own new article. Vehicle ambulance might need to be it's own article. Because that's most of the data is in this topic. Rasseru (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I counted all photos, not just 4 wheeled land vehicles, and for the US I got 2 pictures of the '48 Cadilac, under "History"; the ALS ambulance under "Design and Construction," US EMS and rescue vehicels... under "Active Visual Warnings," the US M997 under "Military Use," and the Hospital Ship Mercy, down near "See also." And I missed the "New" in "New South Wales," and put the motorcycle in the UK - thank's for catching that, Bidgee. So the big three are:
The 4 wheeled land vehicles are the only ones we really need to worry about too much of. Because the other sub articles are not full with pictures. The Military is like a Article it's own and later in the future. Till we get too many of any other type. Then leave those pictures alone. That's a later project. Rasseru (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally, i think we are at risk of getting caught up on the point of where they are from and not what they show. Balance is good, but not at the expense of content. For instance, of the UK ambulances, you have one which is probably the best example of Battenburg marking i've seen (illustrating retro-reflective markings), the bonnet of an ambulance showing star of life and reversed 'ambulance' which could frankly be from a lot of countries, but its a good picture to illustrate the point, the tail lift, which again could be any country and is illustrative of a function, not the ambulance itself. If a better picture illustrating the same point can be used then i'm all for it, but i would strongly resist changing them out just because of their country of origin. I think we have already suffered a bit for this with the change of lead picture, as i don't think the new one is as good as the old one. Incidentally, i think a vehicle ambulance article is a step too far, but making a daughter article out of things like military ambulance is a good idea. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 13:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. But I trust that people understand this and will think about it when changing photos. E.g. the UK Battenburg is very illustrative. However similar pattens from other countries could be just as illustrative. Just for an example such are markings are also now standard in Sweden and Denmark. --|EPO|da:14:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Changed 1 US, 1 UK and 1 Australian. Hard to find replacements for the reverse "Ambulance" with Star of Life and for the display of lights and reflexes. --|EPO|da:11:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Happy with two of them, but i think that the Swedish Volvo does not illustrate the point as well as the previous version, plus i don't think the photo is as good, with a lot of background clutter, and i am minded to change it back. Any thoughts? OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I see your point. Have looked through Flickr and Commons to find a better photo, but I am still looking for the one and only. Give me a week or so. If I don't have found a new photo, I will put the old one back myself. --|EPO|da:21:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
We can only use Commons. You have to search careful in Commons. Because pictures can hide in different word terms, Rasseru (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Rasseru - You can use Flickr to source photos, so long as you go to advanced search and filter those photos licenced for any purpose (CC 2.0) as these can then be transferred to commons. EPO - Sounds like a reasonable solution. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 08:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
In the "Design and construction" I've given examples of the van based and car based systems. It would be nice to show the truck based modular system too. But I don't really think there's enough room for it in the section - any ideas?
At this time, I think the picture edits should stop. Till the article is expand with new topics and data. I hope all people in future who are editing and expanding take this into mind. Thank you. Rasseru (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems that most of the pictures has been changed to other nations and such. So no real need to change the current pictures unless it a update of the same type. Also that we don't want too many users thinking replacing images as battle for a popular nation. Main goals for all article is to expand them with data. Not to build a image gallery in the article. I like to see new text data than a pictures updated to the article. Rasseru (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
If people do not stop with the picture wars... I will change them back to older pictures that was good in the first place. Some of these new pictures are from nations that we have too of them in the article. Such as USA, UK, etc. There should be no fame for pictures. Rasseru (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
