Jump to content

Talk:Los Angeles Fire Department

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge?

[edit]

Does the Wikipedia really need an article just on a single fireboat, the Warner Lawrence? Most of the information in that article is already in the LAFD article. I suggest merging the rest into the Los Angeles Fire Department article and leaving Warner Lawrence as a redirect. BlankVerse 15:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reopened this discussion on Talk:Warner L. Lawrence (fireboat), previously there was a tenuous consensus to keep but the article is still a stub and third party reference free after 2 years. Information should be merged in here where it already mostly covered anyway. Mfield (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency!

[edit]

The television series Emergency! has nothing to do with the Los Angeles City Fire Department. It was really about the Los Angeles County Fire Department which is totally different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.51.11 (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conversions

[edit]

The former conversions in Los Angeles Fire Department#Fire boats were almost meaningless. The abbreviation "lpm" means sweet nothing, it is L/min (preferred) or l/min. However the template:convert can not (yet) handle either one when converting from gallons per minute. So, out of necessity, 9,000 US gallons per minute (0.568 m3/s) or 9,000 US gal/min (0.568 m3/s). Peter Horn User talk 16:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Fire Department not Los Angeles City Fire Department

[edit]

Was there a discussion about why the article was renamed from the official Los Angeles Fire Department to the incorrect Los Angeles City Fire Department? (The official name of the county fire department is Los Angeles County Fire Department.) Weedwhacker128 (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sources.

[edit]

What is the story with all the unsourced changes and additions being added to this article? Is somebody from the Fire Department doing them all? Anyway, everybody should be aware of WP:Reliable sources. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will the knowledgeable but anonymous editors who are adding all the minutiae to this article kindly provide WP:Reliable sources for the same? Otherwise, the info will be challenged and reverted. Thank you kindly. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why this unsourced info was reinserted into the article. Will the responsible editor explain? GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a tag at the top of the page requesting inline sources. If anybody can provide them, I suggest it be done by 23 April, lest the unsourced text be removed. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the answer to your second question is "yes", but have little evidence (e.g. some IP's are Northern California, but 161.149.63.166 is City of Los Angeles). I also expect that the various people doing these updates are unaware of this section of the Talk page. The template displays a request to add inline sources, but makes no mention of your timeline before large-scale removal of unsourced text will occur. The upshot is that I think there's going to be a few very surprised WP editing firefighters on April 24. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, WW. In special-interest areas like this one, often the unnamed sources are hobbyists. I can think of railroad buffs, people who are obsessed with highways and autoroutes, airport aficionados, radio and television stations. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GeorgeLouis: I agree with you that in the past this page has been full of unreferenced material but my recent redo of the page left it with 32 references. At least 90% of the material on the page now has a footnote at the end of the sentence. What part of the recent edit to you view as WP:OR?? --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zackmann08 has asked which references on this page are objectionable. The answer is: Almost all of them. None of the following are from WP: Reliable sources. All of the following are from primary sources, often the LAFD itself. Others are from other governmental sources. One is from a Neighborhood Council. This all smacks of WP: Original research, and I would like User:Zackmann08 to refer me to a Wikipedia policy or guideline that would allow using this kind of information. The editor has been making similar edits, complete with charts, on other pages as well, per this link. I applaud his or her diligence, but it seems to me that Wikipedia is not the place for this. I would like to hear from other editors on this matter, and I will gladly bow to WP:Consensus if it is decided that this sort of page is OK for Wikipedia. I just have to find the proper place to seek such guidance.

  • "Budget 2014-2015". City of Los Angeles. p. 18. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
  • "Fire Chief". Los Angeles Fire Departmet.
  • Stations & Addresses". CERT-LA.
  • "Apparatus". California Firefighters. Retrieved 2 March 2015.
  • "Welcome to the Los Angeles Fire Department". Lafd.org. Retrieved 2014-02-07.
  • "About the LAFD". Los Angeles Fire Department. Retrieved February 20, 2007.
  • "LAFD History". Lafd.org. Retrieved 2014-02-07.
  • "LAFD History". Lafd.org. Retrieved 2014-02-07.
  • "The Origins of the LAFD". Lafd.org. Retrieved 2014-02-07.
  • "N301FD". FAA. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
  • "N304FD". FAA. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
  • "N302FD". FAA. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
  • "N303FD". FAA. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
  • "N301FD". FAA. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
  • "N306FD". FAA. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
  • "Apparatus". Los Angeles Fire Department. Retrieved 2014-02-07.
  • "Deployment Plan". The South Robertson Neighborhoods Council. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
  • "EMS Resources". Los Angeles Fire Department. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
  • "Fire Stations". Port of Los Angeles. Retrieved 4 March 2015.
  • "Los Angeles Fire Department New Fireboat Fleet Dedication" (Press release). Los Angeles Fire Department. March 28, 2003. Retrieved 2006-09-05.
  • "Task Force Locations". FEMA. Retrieved 29 January 2015.
  • "Los Angeles Fire Department Urban Search and Rescue" (PDF). Fire Watch 2 (3). March 2005. Retrieved 2 March 2015.
  • "Emergency Operations". Los Angeles Fire Department. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
  • "LAFD Station Map". CERT LA. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
  • "Stations". The Los Angeles Fire Department Historical Archive. Retrieved 3 March 2015.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I get what you are saying, based on that analysis it would be almost impossible to have a single page on wikipedia about fire departments. No one writes news articles or scholarly journals about the number of engines in a department. And I fail to see how briefs put out by a government organization are not WP: Reliable sources. I won't get in a flame war and would LOVE other users to comment. Everything I have done has been cited. All of those links work and can all be viewed and I invite you to improve the page! If you find the sources not up to par, please improve them. I am not adding NEW content, I am cleaning up existing content, removing unsupported claims and adding sources. The LAFD is one of the largest and most notable departments in the world and certainly in the United States. You seem heart set on blanking and deleting the page. Why not jump in and help? Of the dozens and dozens of pages I have updated, I have gotten nothing but supportive feedback about improving the pages, that seems to point to WP:Consensus. I just feel that there are plenty of un-notable stubs floating around there that could do with some attention, and clean up. For example making a wikipedia page for EVERY train station that has ever been built in the US. No matter how notable. Why pick a battleground on a clearly notable department? --Zackmann08 (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published sources (such as the LAFD website) provide acceptable verification in certain situations -- see: WP:SELFSOURCE. For instance, to verify the name of the current fire chief, LAFD.org is probably the best source you could cite, with little or no interpretation or original research required. However, self-published sources do not aid in establishing notability of a subject under the general notability guideline -- see WP:GNG. If the subject isn't notable, it shouldn't have a standalone article in Wikipedia. I suspect a few minutes research in a local library would turn up many reliable sources independent of the LAFD which have covered the department in a significant way: books, magazine articles, newspaper articles, and so on. That would demonstrate LAFD's notability. For smaller departments such research might prove more difficult. As for whether "minutiae" (such as the apparatus list) belong here, that is a judgment call. A personal rule-of-thumb is that facts which change quickly, or which distract readers from more important facts, should generally be omitted.—Stepheng3 (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about WP:Notability. What is your opinion about (what I consider to be) the WP:Original research that the editor just above has done to find information for this page? And the fact that most of the sources have a WP:Conflict of interest? Nobody argues that the L.A. Fire Department is not Notable, but this entire article is just filled with trivia and minutiae. As are many other fire department articles throughout Wikipedia. But does WP:consensus say this is all OK and we just shouldn't worry about it? GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, apparently I apparently misunderstood this edit. Note that conflict of interest (COI) is an issue related to editors, not sources. Please give an example of a particular claim which you suspect might constitute original research or a particular editor whom you suspect of conflict of interest with this article, and I will offer my opinion. Best regards,—Stepheng3 (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to second that. WP:CONFLICT is regarding editors having a conflict of interest. If I was a member of the LAFD and was removing material regarding some of the "black flags" of the LAFD past, for example if there had been some sex scandal in the LAFD and I was removing that content while being a member of the LAFD, I would of course be violating WP:CONFLICT. That being said, saying that a source from the LAFD official website, talking about the history of the department, or the current operations has a conflict makes no sense. The source is there to disseminate information, just like Wikipedia. Now if I (or anyone else) were writing with 'fluffed up language' such as "The LAFD works hard every day to be the best department in the county." or something like that, well then we would be getting into issues of WP:PROMOTION (or more accurately WP:NOTPROMOTION). @GeorgeLouis: I invite you to cite a specific edit that you view as WP:OR. I would also say that I don't think saying an article is "just filled with trivia and minutiae" matters or is constructive. You could say the same thing about any article on here, but that is just an opinion. For example, the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76). Thats all just trivia to me! I look forward to continuing this discussion. --Zackmann08 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been invited here by the RFC process, so I will do my best to comment, though I have no relevant skill or knowledge.
WP guidelines should be applied to articles about fire departments in the same way as to other articles. I don't think there's anything about fire departments that makes them exceptional.
WP requires citations from reliable independent sources for statements that establish a subject's notability. That is not the issue here. Uncontroversial information about operational details can safely be sourced to the LAFD's own publications.
It is debatable whether information about, say, which engine operates in which neighbourhood should be in the article at all. But the information is uncontroversial and its source reliable, so lack of independence is irrelevant to the debate. It is not like a debate on what Wikipedia should say about the healthiness of a brand of burgers, where material published by the burger chain should be discounted as unreliable. Maproom (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maproom is right. The organization's website and similar publications are acceptable sources for routine, uncontroversial info such as budgets, statistics, command structure, identities of key personnel, etc. EEng (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC does not state a clear question. Generally, WP policies are applicable to this subject exactly as they are to any other subject. If there are existing unsourced facts, it would be best to tag them as such. If a new unsourced fact is added, it's best to challenge the edit on the talk page (with or without reverting it first, depending on how controversial the fact is) so the author has a chance to specify their sources.“WarKosign” 11:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As long as an article itself is Notable, primary sources can be used for non-controversial info, with reasonable care. I'm not seeing any Original Research either, that's when someone inserts their own (unsourced) ideas or arguments. This is more a matter of good editorial judgment rather than a policy issue.
Definitely cut the huge table detailing which trucks serve which neighborhoods. It's very trivial, and very excessive. The table is almost twice the size of all the other content. I'll abstain regarding the rest of the content. There's a bunch of stuff that could be trimmed, but I probably wouldn't bother. (edit) I agree with whoever removed Closed Fire Companies, that was particularly crufty. Alsee (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too am here as part of the RFC and have no expert knowledge of this area. I agree with what Alsee has to say. I have noticed that this issues comes up repeatedly in certain types of articles like the mentioned train stations, also schools, music bands, TV shows, novels, and others. Wikipedia covers many topics not usually found in traditional encyclopedias. There just aren't secondary journal articles or books about most of these topics. If you have access to the right resources you may find news coverage. I think this whole class of articles needs clearer guidelines since they are obviously here to stay as a part of the encyclopedia. As for this case, I'll add to what was said above.
The primary sources are okay for uncontroversial facts. If it claims to be the largest, or first at something then other sources are needed but WP:NOTABLE still must be addressed. For this you need something other than primary source to meet current guidelines. We may all think it's notable but that's not enough. For this article, news or books covering the topic would work. If an editor writes a good article but doesn't have the resources to find references for notability, I think it should be tagged for that specifically and help should be sought. Maybe some of you more familiar with the topic could suggest where to post to get help from editors that might have access to the right resources. Unless the topic's notability is a major issue, it shouldn't be put up for deletion, instead help sould be found for the article. If after some searching nothing can be found, then it is time to discuss deletion. After all, the bottom line for all of us is to improve the content of the encyclopedia. Probing Mind (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would love some insight into this WP:NOTABLE issue. I have been an editor for nearly 5 years and it still seems that notability is such an opinionated thing. For example, every car ever available on the market has a page on wikipedia. No one seems to question that these are notable (I'm not suggesting that they aren't). Same for every settlement (be it a city, county, town, CDP, etc. etc.). In my humble opinion, the fire department of a settlement is inherently notable, particularly if that city (town, county, etc.) is as large and notable is LA. I would argue that this falls under WP:INHERENT. --Zackmann08 (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Summoned by bot. This rfc isn't properly formatted. There should be a simple question that editors can either support or oppose. I feel like more discussion was needed before this was turned into an rfc. To be honest, at this rate I'm gonna stop responding to rfc's. As for the discussion: as stated above, their official website is a fine resource for the lack of better and assuming any fire department regularly appears in the newspaper for fires they extinguished, i think any for department is inherently notable. This is a corner of WP where you don't have to have appeared in Time magazine and on Opra to establish that. Let's be grateful that there are people writing such marginal articles. PizzaMan (♨♨) 08:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Los Angeles Fire Department/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I think the article about the Los Angeles (LAFD) Fire Department could be better. Like including some mention of the 59 members of the LAFD who have lost there life in the line of duty. AS well as the history of the department/

Substituted at 18:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Numbers

[edit]

Sombody went onto the LAFD page and changed the number of apparatus that the LAFD has in service. Why? Can someone please clarify this. thanks earth1000

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Los_Angeles_Fire_Department&oldid=1206162216"