Wikipedia talk:Volunteer Fire Department

Older talk is here

I removed the following since it no longer applies after the name change.

The Wikipedia Pacifists[edit]

As some people already mentioned, such military wording is likely to scare newcomers, and this 'Militia' thing won't serve any purpose above and beyond simply posting a call to action for everyone to the mailing list and placing a notice at the top of RecentChanges. I'd also add that it has really bad communist feel for me. So here is a list of Wikipedia Pacifists.

A
User:Andre Engels - So, what is this Wikipedia Militia to do? When a large number of newbies come, they can be called on to look through new articles and improve or (if they're complete rubbish) delete them. That's something that I already do without being in the Militia, and I see no reason to change that.

Doesn't that mean you are de facto in the militia/fire dept/whatever silly label some people like to put on it? --Brion 19:46 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

Yes that does seem very strange. --mav

M
User:Malcolm Farmer - Yes, the "Wikipedia gardening club": once the big parade is over, and the horses, elephants and camels have gone, we follow along with brooms, buckets and shovels, and put the results where it will keep the Wiki fertile
Fortunately it's never yet got bad enough for the "Augean stable boys".

T
User:Taw

I have put the list back, but without the introductory part - at least my reason to not join the militia has not been changed by the name change (it has however changed by other issues, the main reason I'm not in the fire department now is that I don't come over much, but live in WikipediaNL nowadays). Andre Engels 19:23 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

OK so then why make an issue over this? I don't like the Teletubbies but I don't add my name to an Anti-Teletubbies list. --mav

Well, you just invite the Wikipedia militants to start arguing it should be 'militia' again. Certainly 'militia' was more honest, and would let Jimbo have his musket.

No - Calling this a "Militia" was always a joke - but some pigheaded people without senses of humor who just love to be oppressed and fight against perceived oppressors never got the joke. --mav

If it's a "community" then it needs "defense", so the "militia" was always the right name. However if it's not a "community" it doesn't need "defense". A corporate office building probably needs fire volunteers, that's about right.

Please consider the name IP Death Squad for the nastier functions above.

If you don't think that volunteer firefighters don't defend anything then you need serious help. --mav

No, as usual you fall for your own propaganda. It's not defense if there is no risk to bodies - and hacking up text here carries no such risk. Therefore your metaphor is entirely inappropriate.

It is ensuring the health and well-being of the encyclopedia by repairing damage done by either careless or malicious people. It is also about helping newcommers get the hang of the place. Inanimate objects are defended all the time BTW. The analogy is a good one. --mav

Wow, in order to oppose this cabal, I now have to speak in defense of arson!!!!

Good job cabal, at least a militia could have pacifists. A fire can only be "put out", and it can't speak for itself, unlike oh say an Internet troll.

"Cabal cabal cabal cabal cabal cabal cabal, Cabal cabal cabal cabal cabal cabal cabal," (sung to the tune of "Battle Hymn of the Republic")

Speaking of trolls, I'm going to stop feeding you. --mav

The page needs updating a little bit;

In the near future, for example, we might break 100,000 articles,

I can't think of anything particularly eloquent to replace it with and as its a nicely written page I think I'll avoid making any clumsy changes. Perhaps the person who wrote it would like to change it? Ams80

Would anyone object if I

stripped the list of military references (they look rather weird with the new name - people are even less likely to get the joke!)
removed any Wikipedians who've not edited in the past six months (retired them, if you will)

Martin 00:10 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

Please do
Please create a new section to put them in (retired members).

--mav 00:39 15 May 2003 (UTC)

We are reaching our 150000th article soon. I predict we will be Slashdotted when that happens. Do you think we will need to "put out any fires" when this happens? How bad was it last time we were Slashdotted, at 100,000 articles? dave 07:18, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Personalized Welcoming moved to Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee

While this page is an interesting piece of Wikipedia history, I believe it has lost its relevance. I boldly disbanded the fire department in a recent edit but was reverted, so I make my case here instead:

the main reason something should be done is that the page mischaracterizes the nature of the Wikipedia community as it stands at present, which is confusing to visitors and, especially, new contributors. Wikipedia has so many interest groups (mailing list, meta, irc, committees, cleanup) and statuses (steward, bureaucrat, admin) that actually matter, that the artifical distinction of the "volunteer fire department" is a distraction and a source of confusion.
the incremental growth we have experienced over the last two years has made this an anachronism, since we now have enough editors to deal handily with even a relatively large influx of new contributors
that WP is more popular than many of the websites likely to be referrers here, based on the Alexa ratings

While I don't suggest deletion, I think we should update the page to make it clear that the "fire department" is inactive and remove the list of "members." UninvitedCompany 19:00, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree but if it's going to be kept just for historical reasons, it should be on meta, not here. Angela . 19:30, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, and I was thinking of suggesting that, but I was afraid that there are a fair number of people who would oppose it. Does the "transwiki" bot retain history? If not, it probably should stay here, since the page history is much of the value. UninvitedCompany 19:50, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't retain the history yet, but when MediaWiki 1.3 is released, it will be possible to copy page histories over. One of the benefits of having a log of all transwiki'd pages is that their histories will be able to be undeleted and moved over when this becomes possible. Angela . 20:27, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yikes, I just stumbled across this whole thing, signed up, and now you're telling me it no longer exists? There's a hole in my reality! I just fell down a virtual elevator shaft! And besides, I'm an actual member of an actual Volunteer Fire Department, and there ought to be a _real_ article about the real thing, with its real name. The euphemistic use of the term VFD is kinda pissing in the soup, don't you think? ;Bear 06:38, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections or discussion, I made it clear that the page is inactive. I leave it to others to decide whether it should be moved to the meta. UninvitedCompany 23:15, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I can't really object, but I do want to raise the fact that during the User:Bird attack in mid-March, people listed as VfD members were "called out" to fight that fire and were helpful. So I wonder if it might be too soon to declare it moribund and relegate it to the dustbin of historical pages on Meta?

BCorr|Брайен 00:47, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ok. I wasn't aware that the VFD was actually "called out" for that as there's no mention here and nothing on the mailing list or people's talk pages or anyplace that links here that I can see. In what fashion was the call issued? My real point is that when something like that happens now, our usual response is to put something on the "announcements" page, or bring it up on IRC, or in extreme cases add it to the recent changes page. People help out, or not, to the extent of their abilities, time, and interest, and VFD membership would appear to have little to do with it. Unless I'm missing something. UninvitedCompany 18:26, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)