Talk:Sterling Volunteer Fire Department
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
Sterling Volunteer Fire Department is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to the fire service around the world. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project. |
[edit] Notability
If Sterling, Virginia is notable enough for an article, then it stands to reason that municipal functions such as their volunteer fire department are notable enough to at least be mentioned in their article. Since this article is rather long, it therefore makes sense to branch it off into its own article rather than having this info dominate Sterling's article. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- If the Empire State Building is notable enough for an article, then it stands to reason that the boiler room is notable enough to at least be mentioned in its article. Since such article would rather long, since it would have to discuss a lot of engineering details and list the names of all the stationary engineers, it therefore makes sense to branch it off into its own article rather than having this info dominate the Empire State Building's article.
- Guy, most of the current content is subtrivial and the empty headers promise even less to come: even the 9/11 reference boils down to "we stayed home while other departments rendered mutual aid". This rates maybe ONE sentence -- possibly two if you're being generous -- in Sterling, Virginia. --Calton | Talk 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think "City and its fire department" and "Building and its boiler room" would be considered NOT a match on a comparative logic test. Highfructosecornsyrup 16:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- It's called a "reductio ad absurdum" -- meaning that the essential absurdity of your argument was taken to its logical conclusion, where you tried to claim that because some subject gets an article, some minor subset of said subject is automatically entitled to one, too. Do you require any more explication, or do you have another irrelevant tangent to bring up? --Calton | Talk 00:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I find your haughty attitude uncalled for. The flaw in your "logic" is your assumption that firehouses are a "minor" subset, which is just your POV, but I'm not going to enter into discussions with people who act like they're on some "Hardball" TV debate show where the person who out-barks the other with pompous rhetoric wins. If you think my reasoning is an "irrelevant tangent", take it to AfD and good day to you, sir. Highfructosecornsyrup 14:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I concur with Calton. As a note, using challenging, confrontive language as you have here [s]and on some AFDs is not good Wikipedia practice. I know you only registered this username a few days ago- please have a look at WP:CIVIL if you aren't familiar with it. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of WP:CIVIL. I maintain that Calton has crossed it and my response to it here is more than justified. As for anything I've said on an AfD, I don't believe I've been unnecessarily spirited in my defense of articles. Highfructosecornsyrup 21:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for saying your comments were uncivil in discussion, that appears to have been another user I meant to talk to today. However, uncivil language has no part in an encyclopedia project. Rising to what you perceive as a slight or slighting yourself is bad all around and for all users. --Kuzaar-T-C- 00:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Calton's "Do you require any more explication, or do you have another irrelevant tangent to bring up?" is not just "what I perceive" as a slight. It IS pompous, it IS rude and it IS cranky-TV-pundit style bullying, and I don't accept that it's uncivil on my part to object to another editor who chooses to speak in such an unconstructive way to me. That's all I have to say on the matter, to him and to you. Highfructosecornsyrup 02:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for saying your comments were uncivil in discussion, that appears to have been another user I meant to talk to today. However, uncivil language has no part in an encyclopedia project. Rising to what you perceive as a slight or slighting yourself is bad all around and for all users. --Kuzaar-T-C- 00:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of WP:CIVIL. I maintain that Calton has crossed it and my response to it here is more than justified. As for anything I've said on an AfD, I don't believe I've been unnecessarily spirited in my defense of articles. Highfructosecornsyrup 21:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I concur with Calton. As a note, using challenging, confrontive language as you have here [s]and on some AFDs is not good Wikipedia practice. I know you only registered this username a few days ago- please have a look at WP:CIVIL if you aren't familiar with it. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I find your haughty attitude uncalled for. The flaw in your "logic" is your assumption that firehouses are a "minor" subset, which is just your POV, but I'm not going to enter into discussions with people who act like they're on some "Hardball" TV debate show where the person who out-barks the other with pompous rhetoric wins. If you think my reasoning is an "irrelevant tangent", take it to AfD and good day to you, sir. Highfructosecornsyrup 14:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's called a "reductio ad absurdum" -- meaning that the essential absurdity of your argument was taken to its logical conclusion, where you tried to claim that because some subject gets an article, some minor subset of said subject is automatically entitled to one, too. Do you require any more explication, or do you have another irrelevant tangent to bring up? --Calton | Talk 00:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-
