Talk:Search and rescue
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Search and rescue article.|
|WikiProject Disaster management||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Medicine / Emergency medicine and EMS||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
I've deleted "Go away Burns!!!" from the "Search Phases" heading. It seems to have no relevance whatsoever.
Can we add a section about the Federal Aviation Regulation allowing private pilots to participate in SAR operations at the reimbursement of the government? Swatjester 23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Wilderness search and rescue=
It appears the intent is for "Wilderness search and rescue" in the introduction to link the the Subsection "Wilderness search and rescue" in the United States section. However, I couldn't figure out how to link to a sub section either. DriveBy27 02:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is very US-centric. Editors from other countries, PLEASE step in! Una Smith 01:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Northern Territory of Australia
I'm pretty sure the NTES (Northern Territory Emergency Services) operate in the NT, and not the AusSAR.
This article has countless links to helicopter yet none of them are clickable, whassup with that? TheBlazikenMaster 10:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have linked the first caption and text instances of helicopter in the article. How is that? - Ahunt 12:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This article has many whole sections, particularly dealing with national SAR, that have no references at all. These have been paragraph tagged for some time, but few refs have been added as a result. I have managed to hunt down some refs for some sections, but most still are unreferenced. I have added section unref tags to show editors where refs are needed and also to alert readers that the sections are unreferenced and therefore totally unreliable. Editors should note that unreferenced information can be challenged and deleted at any time, so if you are adding text without refs it may be gone quickly. In short refs are required for all information in Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
SAR in Germany/DGzRS
There were severe errors in this section. The article supposes that the German Navy is also generally responsible for SAR services which is wrong. The Navy provides only air support and has an own section of Sea King helicopters for this purpose stationed in Kiel. And there is no such thing as an independent "German Coast Guard", it is simply a coordination center for a several independent civil services. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This article has to be improved as the official Norwegian SAR service is not described. The link below gives information about how the service is organized.
http://www.hovedredningssentralen.no/english/index.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Gurroz just added a link to Superstition Search and Rescue to this article. This is a redlink, meaning that the article does not yet exist. If it were created what would this article be about? - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay in doing some research I think I found an answer to that question. Now someone just has to write the article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article describes it as: "a humanitarian organization aiming to assist and rescue raft refugees emigrating from Cuba". Due to its political context it is a bit different from other SAR organizations, but it seems to fit the basic definitions of SAR and since it is only a single link in this article without a bunch of text, I don't see a problem with it being here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Time to spin off some new articles ?
Some of the country sections (e.g. Canada and US) are rather large. Would anybody object to moving the details to new articles and replacing the sections by a few paragraphs (without the lists full of redlinks) ? DexDor (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- That can be done to Search and rescue in Canada, Search and rescue in the United States, etc, as long as a Template:Main is used in this article to send readers to the new one. - Ahunt (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea but the whole article is a bit of a mess, it is mainly lists of organisations and very little explantion, it may be better just to delete all the "SAR by nation" section as it is unbalanced and tells us little about SAR. But I dont have a problem with seperate national overviews, dont really need main links (for all 125 potential countries that could be Search and rescue in Foo) a cat may better. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Agree that SAR by country should be spun off in to individual articles where sufficient notability exists. This radically improved a number of similar articles including Emergency medical services and police car by getting rid of huge lists of information and splitting by country (like Emergency medical services in the United States and Police vehicles in the United Kingdom) whilst avoiding throwing away notable and verifiable materials. This is in line with the Wikipedia daughter article policy and some of the daughter articles are now good in their own right. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 06:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)