Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fire Service/Archive 3

Infobox UK Fire and Rescue
Recent changes to the template Infobox UK Fire and Rescue have had the effect of somehow altering/breaking the image= parameter and therefore orphaning any UK FRS authority crests/badges. Could someone please have a look to see if this is fixable before these images are deleted? As an example Image:Witshire Fire Brigade badge.gif is used in the infobox for the Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service but for some reason is not displaying (and therefore unused). Nanonic (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Beekman Fire District
If anyone could help me with this page which is a stub Beekman Fire District and save it from an AfD it would be appreciated. An unruly incoherent Administrator that has targeted all of my pages, has once again struck and is attempting to remove this article from the encyclopedia. The Fire District itself is notable for recceiving the RFSI Life Safety Achievement Award for the 5th year in a row. The fire department lost a truck when complications caused the truck to lose control and kill staff on board. If someone could help improve the fire service project, and help fix this article it would be appreciated.--English836 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please also see discussion at User talk:English836. Metros (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Former fire stations
I'm not part of this project, but I realized after creating enough articles on former firehouses for WP:NRHP that I have added to this project that we needed a category for firehouses taken out of service, since I didn't feel right categorizing them as fire stations as they were no longer active for that purpose. So, I have created and populated it. Go ahead and use it if you find yourselves writing about old firehouses. Daniel Case (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Houston Fire Department assessment and improvement
I would not only would like a proper assessment of this article, but to help me find ways to improve it. I originally started this article last year and I think that a bit of help is needed and I don't have the expertise to do it properly.--Hourick (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fire Service Ranks
I propose merging ALL of the firefighting rank articles into three, maybe four, articles:
 * Firefighter
 * Fire Officer (Company officer, captain, lieutennant, sub-officer, station officer, etc.)
 * Chief Fire Officer (Fire Chief, Fire Master, etc.)
 * Wildland Firefighter--to distinguish that wild/grass/forest fire extinguishment is a similar but distinct discipline.

Many of the individual stub 'rank' articles have little content, and I'd rather make them into larger, illustrated, well-documented articles like Firefighter. Objections? I've already tagged some pages for proposed mergers, and haven't heard anything negative on them. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 729 articles are assigned to this project, of which 198, or 27.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Firefighting article
I just wanted to let your project know that I've tagged this article as unreferenced. Also, it seems that some of the information contained may be directly from a manual or textbook on the subject of firefighting. Shinerunner (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Fire service
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Edward M. Cotter (fireboat)
This article has passed review and is now considered a Good Article! Shinerunner (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! I'm working to get Thermal imaging camera to GA status myself. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Search and rescue
Search and rescue (and related articles) is in Category:Rescue but is not quite within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management. Would SAR be more within scope of WikiProject Fire Service? --Una Smith (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. A lot of fire departments handle SAR, but not all. I would say it would depend on the article and the rationale behind the tag. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Some SAR-related articles (eg, about FEMA, the US Coast Guard, etc.) are disaster related, but others are not. Articles on "local" SAR topics (eg, SAR dog, and articles on SAR teams) might be better served by oversight from WP Fire Service rather than WP Disaster Management.  Before I start changing WikiProject tags, I'm checking in here.  --Una Smith (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say urban search and rescue is clearly within scope, at least as far as the US is concerned. In the rural US, it's Civil Air Patrol and Sheriff for the most part, neither of which I see as within scope. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Urban SAR is within scope of which project? --Una Smith (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

PR: Mounted search and rescue
Please peer review Mounted search and rescue and leave comments on Talk:Mounted search and rescue. I would appreciate other eyes looking at the article. Specifically, what information did you expect to find in it that is not there? Thanks! --Una Smith (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Article efforts
Thanks to my efforts, Thermal imaging camera is now a good article. With another editor or two helping, we could seriously improve a lot of the fire service articles.

I've been WP:BOLD and nominated Charleston Sofa Super Store Fire for GA. If you'd like to help me out with that article, please join in on the talk page--it may be a week or two before someone gets to it for review. Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Devon & Somerset help requested
I would appreciate some help and advice over at Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service (talk) where we have an editor who seems set on listing the individual call signs of every single appliance owned by the fire service. While these call signs can be verified on the service's website, it seems to me (and another editor who has also reverted the addition of the callsigns) that this is a little too much detail for the article and that it doesn't add any value. You people know more about fire service articles so I'd appreciate a little input on the talk page. --TimTay (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add that I think the article is already way too detailed and would appreciate some experienced fire service article editors giving it a review and making appropriate changes. --TimTay (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree it is very detailed...but only in comparison to other Fire Service pages on Wikipedia. If this one can set a semi-standard for Fire Service articles, then the others could also be duplicated to provide such a wealth and depth of knowledge. Samiddon (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Any comments on the above please folks? Samiddon (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Great Fire of London
Great Fire of London has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Kuzwa (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)