Jump to content

Talk:New South Wales Rural Fire Service

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

LISTEN

[edit]

Whilst the page definately needs improving, to have it tagged for deletion is just plain stupid - it provides an interesting (if at times potentially unreliable) source of information and given the size and depth of the organisation it is vital to have a page on it. What I find even worse is that fact that the page is now effectively impossible to navigate because people have put so many tags throughout it and messed around with the formatting. Stop complaining about its quality and fix it - if not leave it alone so people who have a vague interest can at least get a summary of the organisation and its purpose - instead of looking at a bunch of wikipedia-themed tags complaining about quality

[edit]

I noted in the history of this page that a number of individuals have attempted to add external links to individual brigade websites, and that other individuals have then come along and removed these links. I am creating a new page which lists all of the Brigades within the NSW Rural Fire Service, and I suggest that any external links to individual brigade websites are made on this new page, *not* here on the main NSW RFS page. Feel free to add comments below Jpmanalo 18:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the aforementioned page - see Brigades of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. -- Jpmanalo 18:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the main page should not contain links to multiple individual brigade websites. Thats what the other page, the list of brigades, is there for. If you believe that they should be on the main page, you're asking for potentially 2000 links at the bottom. This page is about the SERVICE not about the brigades.211.30.183.40 13:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup or rewrite needed

[edit]

This article has entire sections which would be non-notable, and lists every type of qualification they issue and vehicle that they use, which IMHO is really not for a Wikipedia article. Also the formatting and grammar is rather inconsistent. I also think quoting whole slabs of the RFS Strategic Plan is unnecessary.

I'm going to tag this article for cleanup. ajdlinux 09:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged, with quite a lot of stuff removed in the process. The massive quote from the strategic plan document could be a copyright violation, so removed, the lists are IMO unencyclopaedic, but I have not removed them yet, merely tagged them. ajdlinux 09:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In actual fact they list of qualifications is far from complete. the RFS offers in excess of 50 courses ( as of jan 2007) so listing a few of the major ones is fairly relevant. Raya 85 08:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if nobody has any further objections im gonna take the unenclopydic tag off the qualifications section. ~~

I object. Someone needs to say why NSW RFS qualifications are really useful to have in a Wikipedia article. --ajdlinux 06:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they give a deeper understanding of subject matter. its that simple. Raya 85 12:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do they give a deeper understanding of the subject matter *that anyone will actually read*? I for one don't care at all about the qualifications and vehicles etc., if I wanted to read about those *I would read it off the RFS site or something*. ajdlinux 10:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think some vehicle detail is necessary, every appliance and variants probably not. The same applies to qualifications in that its a voluntary organisation how/what are the skill requirements, again not every level but definately a general over view. This basic information needs to be there just to make the article comprehensive. Some areas may even warrant daughter articlesGnangarra 11:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I agree with you, we need an overview rather than a whole load of lists. Something that can inform but not overwhelm :) ajdlinux 09:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People

[edit]

It is odd that this article as it stands makes no reference to the people that make up the organisation. There is however considerable space devoted to the equipment for some reason. Founding and recently departed Commissioner Phil Koperberg doesn't even get a mention. I will be inserting that shortly. What about a section outlining the rank structure and another on the role of volunteers and paid staff - I will get to these.Ajayvius 03:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commissioner of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service

[edit]

I took the WP:BOLD step of merging the content from Commissioner of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service to this article. So far there has only been one Commissioner, and the office is only notable in light of the organisation. I think it is quite unlikely that you could find sufficient independently published material to keep Commissioner of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service as an article if it goes to AfD. Garrie 04:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read up there a bit. Sorry, this was mentioned prior to the article creation but I only became aware of the article creation through new page patrolling. Sorry, but before daughter articles are created, they need to independently establish notability. Every organisation has a head - the CEO, Commissioner, Chief Executive, or whatever. Some individual bosses become notable, through that role - Including Phil K. But the position itself is inevidable, not notable - it is worth mentioning in this article, but not worth an article of itself.
As to the courses / subjects - they probably belong at Wikiversity if anywhere, a lot of australian institutions have RTO-accredited training schemes including certificate 1 - diploma courses. Mention that Australian Training Framework accredited training is used, but don't provide intranet-level information, it isn't encyclopaedic (is subject by subject breakdown provided for University of Sydney, UTS, UWS, etc? - no, it's not and training is what they do).
Garrie 04:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

Starting cleanup of article. --Mikecraig 05:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's still needed! I removed a bit of (IMO) excessive detail. Start and finish dates of appointment as assistant commissioner down to the time of day are not encyclopedic. They only really matter if there was an incident going on at the time of the changeover (I haven't seen any indication there was).Garrie 04:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFS Queensland

[edit]

i'm not up to speed on redirects and disambiguation, so somebody can hopefully take this up. There is also a "Rural Fire Service" - Queensland:
http://www.ruralfire.qld.gov.au/
Would somebody please start a stub & then fix the disambiguation/redirects from "Rural Fire Service" to the 2 bodies? The other Australian states have various names for metro & rural fire services. Some are listed at Australasian Fire Authorities Council. David Woodward (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bother with a seperate article for RFS Qld - it forms part of the QFRS and should be inlcuded in that article. A seperate article will further add to confusing about how it works in this state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.133.237 (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

References 26 - 37 link directly to PDF downloads of the Service's Annual Reports that are 1.5MB in size. This seems like an extraordinarily time-consuming way to reference a single person's name, especially as after downloading it you have to then wade through it to find the reference. I'm going to remove these. --BrianFG (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Wow. This section is really verbose. In fact it's a direct cut and paste from the pages it references, which is a whole bunch of legal waffling on. I'm going to whittle this down so it doesn't bore everyone. --BrianFG (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Rfs logo.jpg

[edit]

Image:Rfs logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Claims' as worlds largest fire service

[edit]

The NSW Rural Fire Service, the world's largest fire service. Our 70,000 volunteer members provide emergency services to over 95 percent of NSW. http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

FDIC - http://www.fdic.com/index.html recognises it as such.

RFSA also claims it largest in world http://www.rfsa.org.au/rfsa/index.php?D=1

Why is it stated as 'claims' with the title? I find no data to prove it isn't. 

User:Grelnar|Grelnar]] (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up of Tankers and PPE This area of the article reads like a media release of the RFS. Many of the tankers and associated equipment is old and does not provide adequate protection to crew. The tankers are modified commercial trucks with plastic lined cabins that are flammable and produce toxic fumes. These older tankers often do not have adequate self protection water sprays. Only new tankers have decent self protection sprays that can be operated from inside the cabin.

PPE issued to volunteers for bushfire (wildfire) fighting is of variable quality. It is bought to meet minimum standards and lowest quote. The issue bush fire helmets melt at relatively low temperatures and do not have a visor or adequate harness. Most volunteers who are active fire fighters purchase their own Kevlar laminate helmets with visors and safer harness. The RFS issue good quality goggles, but they cannot be worn for extended periods. Most volunteers at own expense buy safety glasses, the RFS will not issue safety glasses, claiming the only eye protection we need is goggles.

Yabbietol TO'L (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New South Wales Rural Fire Service. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FireScan aircraft

[edit]

The photo that one user wants to use (File:NSW Rural Fire Service, operated by Coulson Aviation, (VH-VJO) Cessna 560 Citation V at Wagga Wagga Airport.jpg) is while it was being used for VIP transport purposes, not the main function that it is used for (Line Scanning). File:NSW Rural Fire Service, operated by Coulson Aviation, (VH-VJT) Cessna 560 Citation V at Wagga Wagga Airport.jpg, if the only freely licensed photo that has the pod fitted to it. The one with the pod fitted should be restored. Bidgee (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is common sense, but keeps revert without any sources, we can take this up at WP:RFPP - 112.198.194.16 (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_South_Wales_Rural_Fire_Service&oldid=1262143099"