Content deleted Content added
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#History|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 modes and severity with one statement means chaos when multiple groups need to work together (imagine 20-30 people swarming upon your ___location ready for anything... when you're sitting at lunch eating).
:Telling officers, staff, and volunteers to suspend Ten-codes during an incident is impossible when they're your daily lingua franca; you're going to slip and use them. 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. The initial purpose was to keep laypeople from being a part of a radio conversation by overhearing it (both on site and over a scanner). That's not as much of a problem today, as most police and law enforcement do the majority of communications on computers in their car (which are digital, encrypted and not available to laypeople) and just use the radio for mobile unit movement and tactical placement.
| |||