Talk:Fire police

Someone explain to me how this deserves a 'context' query??? I don't see the confusion. BlakJakNZ 08:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I too think it is clear enough to anyone who reads it. The name fire police itself may be confusing to some, but I think the text of the entry clears up any confusion about it. Having added quite a bit to this page in the past, I don't think it deserves the context flag. Pdblues 21:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the context tag as noones said anything either way and all comments are in the affirmative...

Unref & OR tags

No attribution currently exists - there need to be more reliable sources to back up any claims made in the article. - Tiswas^(t) 11:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; did you read any of the links? The concept of 'Fire Police' is documented in legislation (and there are links to such) but is otherwise a largely undocumented aspect of Fire Brigades around the place, so theres not exactly a lot of 'other' references to quote. Would appreciate an example of an 'uncited' assertation that requires a reference, and perhaps I can find something that'll suit you. BlakJakNZ 21:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did read some of the links, and they provide only limited WP:A:attribution for the content of the article. If there are links to legislation, they should be included (and correctly cited). An example of an uncited assertion would be, at this stage, the entire article. - Tiswas^(t) 08:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Wiki is moving downhill by people who randomly tag pages they know nothing about. As a contributor to this page when it was just a stub, I've seen many come by and tag this or that to it while BlakJakNZ and I have continually tried to polish its appearance. It would be much more helpful if people would tell what they have issues with. I am a Lieutenant in a fire police organization and have been providing service with that same organization for 10 years now. I'd say I'm about as qualified of a source as any. No one is writing any scholarly journal articles about fire police.Pdblues 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Converselely, WP's value is degraded by editors that don't feel the need to attribute articles to verifiable, reliable sources. But this is not the place to [[WP:|POINT|make a point]]. The tags are there to notify both the authors, adn other editors, that an article falls short of wikipedia standards, and needs improving. From the sound of it, you have the first hand knowledge to bolster the article, but be mindful that, unless you cite any claims made, it would be original research. Journals are not the only source, either. - Tiswas^(t) 08:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have recently valued the Wikipedia entry on Fire Police as a way to help explain to people that its not just a local phenomena. A shame that it is a subject which is so hard to establish something that meets verafiability standard. I have begun a restructure on the article which should allow some more room for references, etc, and hope that this is deemed appropriate.... BlakJakNZ 08:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fire Marshalls

Merging the article "Fire Marshal" with the article "Fire Police" seems appropriate due to the many similarities that they share. Redsox04 20:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Fire Police are not investigative, they have quite different roles. Fire Marshalls would be paid employees; Fire Police are volunteers. Fire Police provide operational safety to fire crews, Fire Marshalls investigate fires and appear to have more to share with Fire Safety Officers than Fire Police. (PS moved this to its own subsection) BlakJakNZ 04:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My god did I start cracking up when I saw this suggestion. Redsox04, did you even read the articles? I was pretty flabbergasted when a woman referred to me as "officer" a couple of weeks ago, but come on, comparing fire police to fire marshals? I just re-read both articles, and can not find any of these "many similarities" you refer to. It's so laughable I'm going to have to be bold and not wait for any consensus and clean this mess up... Search4Lancer 15:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Good man. Well done. BlakJakNZ 07:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Links Section

I can't say that I approve of an editor arbitrarily removing ALL links due to being 'non-encyclopediac'. I have reviewed Wikipedia:External_links and the links themselves seem to fit very nicely into the category of what _can_ be linked. If you feel the links should be removed, i'd encourage you to discuss it here first. BlakJakNZ 06:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming to 'Fire police' (lower case Police)

Can anyone point me at why this happened? Fire Police are a variant of Police and as such deserve the capital letter in my rudimentary understanding of English grammar... BlakJakNZ (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

US

For, what I hope are, obvious reasons, I have deleted "as well as some other countries, such as New Zealand" from the sentence listing US states that employ Fire Police. (of course, if NZ and some other countries have recently been annexed, it should be restored). Irish Melkite (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fire police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070719224640/http://www.hvfp.org.nz/FirePoliceRole to http://www.hvfp.org.nz/FirePoliceRole

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)