Talk:Ten-code: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:14, 7 March 2016

Revision as of 18:18, 7 March 2016

Line 268:

Here's how you do it. You create the full table with all the placeholders: 1-1 to 1-99. Any codes that don't seem to have a consensus you indicate meaning varies greatly by jurisdiction and give a couple sample meanings for that code. For the codes that have mostly similar meaning you can put a reasonable translation - certainly everything on the APCO list should be on this page. This is a reference site that is not supposed to discriminate based on subject, or how narrow the perceived interest might be in said subject - which, by the way, how the hell would you know how broad or narrow the interest is in something unless you allow people the opportunity to access the information for themselves? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.38.194.15|71.38.194.15]] ([[User talk:71.38.194.15|talk]]) 17:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:*Where does info belong if not on Wikipedia? If all information belonged on Wikipedia, there would be no AfD process, would there? We wouldn't have notability guidelines, would we? Clearly, even Wikipedia doesn't think that all information belongs on Wikipedia. If it were limited to the APCO uses, I might consider it viable, but history has shown us that cleaning up the dreck from every little "this dept. uses this one" entry is a steady job and not really worth it. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 12:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

::*First off, an encyclopedia is a primer of information. It might be comprehensive in that it covers info from all viewpoints, but it is never exhaustive. If you want to make the exhaustive, be-all, end-all resource to 10-codes used throughout the world, no one is stopping you from doing so. Host your own site and go make it, or if you're short on cash, Wikia would love to have niche info like this (if it isn't already on there.) Second, forgive my geocentristic point of view if you must, but in the United States with federal guidelines concerning the Incident Command System and National Incident Management System, Ten-codes are deprecated exactly for that reason. So many agencies have different uses that one group's 10-100 (Lunch Break) is another group's 10-100 (mental patient unsupervised with a sharp object) and is another group's 10-100 (traffic collision involving loss of life or limb). Different severities with one statement means chaos when multiple groups need to work together, and suspending Ten-codes during an incident is difficult when they're your daily lingua franca. I don't see an issue of a short list of 5-7 Ten-codes to show the beginnings of what a list looks like, but in reality Ten-codes shouldn't be used anymore, it's too confusing. [[Special:Contributions/71.84.227.69|71.84.227.69]] ([[User talk:71.84.227.69|talk]]) 18:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree, fwiw, that the article needs the basic APCO list. The self-justifying words on the talk page illustrate the lack of common sense that led to the list's removal. When Wikipedia has been completely cleansed of all that pesky information, it will cease to be useful. [[User:Adallas|Adallas]] ([[User talk:Adallas|talk]]) 21:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

::*"self-justifying", "lack of common sense".......nothing like coming in and going on the (personal) attack, huh? Guess what? There was a consensus reached, based on more than your personal definition of common sense and [[WP:ILIKEIT]]. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 13:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

::*You should probably familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not in case you haven't already: [[WP:ISNOT]]. Of particular note, Wikipedia is not a Guidebook or an Indiscriminate Source of Information. [[Special:Contributions/71.84.227.69|71.84.227.69]] ([[User talk:71.84.227.69|talk]]) 18:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The answer to problematic editing of information is not to remove the information. There would be no vandalism of articles if all the articles were removed, but that doe not make for a very good encyclopaedia. I am not sure I fully understand the problem, I only came here to look up a specific code, but I undertand there are a great number of variant codes. Surely a simple answer to this is to list a specific example and state it as such. The ACPO official code? Or even more than one example which should make it clear that local variants should not be added to the listing. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning</font>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<font style="color:#4840a0">Spark'''</font>]]''' 23:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)