Talk:Fire alarm call box

References

• Annual Report of the Department of Public Works, Chicago (Ill.)
• Electrical World, Volume 59
• USBoC Bulletin, Issue 11, Fire Alarm and Police Call Census
• CBoE Educational Bi-monthly, Volume 10, Chicago (Ill.), edited by William Bishop Owen
• Western Neighborhoods Project - Your Stories: Re: Police Telephone Boxes
• Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco gives a detailed history of the blue police call boxes.
• Annual Report of The Department of Gas and Electricity, City of Chicago, Volume 2, 1898
• FIRE ALARM TELEGRAPH - Denver Fire Journal
• Pacheco St & Castenada Ave, San Francisco, CA, USA
• A New Central Fire Alarm Station - 1912
• San Francisco Central Fire Alarm Station Operations - 1937
• HISTORY AND DISCUSSION OF THE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM OF SAN FRANCISCO by John Joseph O'Brien April 2, 1951

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Flickr: "departmentofelectricity"

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• San Francisco Mayor's Emergency Telephone System
• search: police telephone department of electricity
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/harshmellow/5337197778/
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/wlindley/18531298/
• Image:Arfm mark2.jpg|A large gong sounds the alarm as a visitor pulls the handle on an antique fire alarm box. One of the many hands-on exhibits in the Aurora Regional Fire Museum.

• ebay search: Fire alarm call box

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• search: gamewell fire alarm box

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Not ignoring electric power lines besides mains

I tried to improve this article by specifying that VoIP equipment needs external power to run, rather than just "power" period. But that improvement got reverted by a user who doesn't understand telephony enough to know that PSTN lines have their own power that basic phones run on. ("Well, DUH, what did you think the basic phones ran on: magic fairy dust?") So before I added the improvement that he faultily reverted, the article made the errant implication that the only kind of line power comes from mains, hence my having added clarification words such as "external" to "power," to indicate to the people whom my above parenthetical phrase applies to that PSTN lines have their own power, while the article already covers that VoIP and the charging of cell phones takes another source of line power. So let's agree to use my improvement in this regard, rather than regressing the article to a less correct form, shall we?

97.117.49.210 (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The article is fine as it is. As you persist in using a range of IPs from which to edit (yet seemingly have their choice at your control, not merely a random allocation) it is hard to take you seriously as an overt editor, rather than one who is practising good hand / bad hand edits and trying to hide their connection. And while you're about it, don't attack other editors like this.

If you want to be taken seriously as an editor, such that your persona is identifiable and might be given some credence for knowledge of a subject, then register an account and use it. Even then, references carry a lot more weight than opinions. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley:, no, I wasn't attacking another editor. That parenthetical phrase was just for people in general who might not be aware enough. I can't choose whether I get a 75... or a 97... or whatever. If I could, then I would have stayed with the 75 so that you'd be more likely to recognize me. I'm obviously not a covert editor, because I talked to you already about this, and then I brought the attention here like we're SUPPOSED to do. Remember BRD? Have you ever heard of dynamic IPs? It changes when it wants to. And there is no rule that says we must use an account. But it wouldn't be hard to create one either, so....

No, the article is not fine just like it is, because it only acknowledges mains and battery power. It's errantly pretending like phone lines don't also have some power. Why should I need a reference regarding the fact, not just my opinion, that regular phone lines carry their own power like the lines that power these boxes do when it's been common knowledge (to those who have been familiar with old standard landline phones) for a long time (I've even seen a wikipedia rule saying that not every little minute detail needs to be cited)?

I can go try to find an obvious statement that PSTN lines have their own power, if you really NEED it, I guess, but I shouldn't need to dig for one of those.

97.117.49.232 (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Andy and @Mx. Granger:, I went in there now and added a reference for those it's not obvious to that regular telephone sets do not have their own power supplies like memory/speaker/cordless/answering feature phones and VOIP boxes and fax machines, etc. do. Blehhh....

97.117.51.246 (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The IP editor seems to be WP:CANVASSING on this issue. [1] [2] [3] [4] —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, @Mx. Granger:, so... what? As I read that page that you pointed us to, I see this:

"It is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." So why bring that up as if it were a problem even though the page itself says it's not?

And why didn't you offer your commentary on why it makes sense to differentiate between mains power and phone line power instead of pretending like phone line power doesn't exist?

97.117.49.232 (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2017(UTC)

The page also says that "posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" is inappropriate. I don't have an opinion on whether the article should say "external" or not, but I think the messages you left advocating a position were not appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply, Grange. (Are you watching this page, so I don't have to ping ya every time?) Okay, my apology. I didn't read far enough. (I guess your comment about canvassing would've been more clear as a complaint if you had included something like "...with a non-neutral POV." But why should that matter anyway, since a person is going to see the non-neutral POV at the article's talk page and be able to discuss it there with everyone else who goes there to talk anyway?

97.117.49.232 (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Brevity is the soul of clarity. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hold on Andy. Any revert with the comment "The article is fine as it is." is FOS. You should know that. What's the real issue here? Toddst1 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

No, Andy, not if the slightly shorter version doesn't take all factors into account, such as ignoring the fact that there's more than one kind of line that electrical power is used on, so calling only one "power" and the rest just... not it.

But anyway, wow, EEng, you did quite a number on that, didn't ya? Heheh, I see only two words from that whole thing that held onto their old spots! Quite an interesting way to rewrite that, which I wouldn't have thought of! It seems to work, though. Oh, that reminds me: Ronald McDonald has just been here to my nearest McDonald's twice within 2 weeks of each other just last month (July). Why? Because instead of remodeling that building, they tore it all down a few months ago and built a brand-new one with the new floor plan, from scratch, so it called for a grand reopening party!

All seriousness intact, though, guys--including Toddst1, Mx. Granger (whose reply up there, re: canvassing, to which I asked a follow-up question that is still waiting for its answer), and Andy Dingley--thanks for everyone's help! But Todd and Andy, I see from your pages that there's some dislike between you two, and some between Andy and me for some odd reason, and I'm sorry; I didn't mean to refresh that between you two by pitting you against each other here. Andy was good to help me at another article so I asked him for it here, but then also wanted to ask others for help here, which I got, so thanks.

Now the rest of this might be more suited for individuals' pages, but hopefully you'll forgive me for using this article's talk page as a more central location. It's just that given the logistics, it's easiest for me to do it here.

It's just sad for me to see that even though we sometimes try to help each other, we can't just be friends; like when you, Andy, say on your own page and on Todd's that I'm some sort of "troll" to you; or if you, Todd, ever think I've trolled you but you weren't vocal about it this time. I'm sorry if either of you feels that way. I've never trolled you guys. If you think you remember times when we've had disputes before, that doesn't mean I was trolling you. All I do is that when I'm reading articles for whatever reason, and I see errors or things that need other clean-up, or opportunities to add consistency, I do--or attempt to do--exactly that to them. And then of course I try to maintain my positions on those things when I see no justification for them to be torn down. And if anyone else gets caught in the middle of that, it's not personal--well, even if an insult is thrown like has happened to me before. Maybe we're all guilty of that periodically, right? Even then, I'm still not going around from there and looking for any specific user (unless someone pisses me off ROYALLY; but neither of you two have done that).

So... thanks again, Andy, on the other article, and thank you, EEng, Todd, and Granger, for your help here. Now can we all work on just being helpful friends with each other, even when there are disputes between us, and not call each other supposed "trolls" and give "the finger" (I did laugh a little when I saw that, Todd, honestly, hehe, but really, I want us all to be friends instead)?

Thanks, if so!

[Right now my address is 174.23.146.92 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC), and I promise that I had no choice of which numbers came up.]

So, guys, does using "EEng," "Toddst1," "Andy Dingley," and "Mx. Granger" work to call your attention back to the page, where I've left you all an update to the discussion we've been having here, or is it only "@EEng:," "@Toddst1:," "@Andy Dingley:," and "@Mx. Granger:"?

Now known as 174.23.191.158 (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC).

• Yes, the {{u}} template works, but I don't know why you're summoning us. I made an edit and no one has objected, so I guess it's OK. I suggest you leave it at that. EEng 03:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

+1 Toddst1 (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Because, EEng and Toddst1, I put up this longish new piece of discussion thanking you two for your efforts here (yes, E, it looks good; nicely done) and requesting follow-up reply from Mx. Granger re: our bit of discussion of canvassing up there}}, and asking Todd and Andy Dingley if you guys would try to be friends with each other and me (yes, here on this talk page, just due to logistical issues). And all I get for all that effort is... almost ignorance, or ~"Why are you calling us now?"

Hmmm....! :-(

174.23.191.158 (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say your efforts to bring peace are appreciated. EEng 04:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. I don't have an opinion on this article and I don't really want to keep discussing canvassing—if anyone is interested in that there is information at WP:CANVAS. It sounds like the issue has been resolved. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, EEng. I appreciate your reply.

Thanks, Mx. Granger, but it would be nice if you would at least have been willing to explain what difference it makes whether the personal talk page has persuasion material on it as long as the article talk page does too. Oh, so you're saying that you think that if I read further down that essay, it explains what the supposed difference is?

Mike, now known with the IP address of 75.162.241.2 (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fire alarm call box. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512201708/http://www.gamewell-fci.com/history.html to http://www.gamewell-fci.com/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512201708/http://www.gamewell-fci.com/history.html to http://www.gamewell-fci.com/history.html

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) 06:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment

We had these in UK but struggling to find any jnfo. Had one at end of my road 1958. 90.194.125.189 (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

If someone wants to add info on the history of fire alarm call boxes in the UK, there's some good information on pages 69–81 here: Brown, Reginald (1912), "Fire Protection in Towns", Proceedings of the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers, vol. 38 Rupert Clayton (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this.

I’m willing to have a go at integrating it into the article, but undecided as to how it should be structured.

Do we split the content into US and international sections, or try to work the additional material into the “history” section? Foxmilder (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Do these exist outside America?

Does this article only cover the American history of these devices because the article is incomplete, or because the call box system itself is unique and/or specific to America?

This isn’t a complaint, as such — I’m sincerely curious about the comparative international history of firefighting systems. Foxmilder (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this article seems to be about American processes and arrangements - nothing wrong with that, but the article needs to make the regionalism explicit. I'm not aware of any comparable dedicated boxes in the UK, though local fire stations sometimes had bell pushes outside to wake up firefighters during night calls. --Ef80 (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That’s an interesting historical detail about the UK bell pushes. As you say, they’re not directly comparable to the American units themselves, but what you’ve described suggests a degree of similarity.

Both seem to be intermediate stages in the development of modern emergency-response systems, each deploying some technologies and arrangements that would later be further refined: alarms, dedicated emergency lines, arrangements for rapid deployment of crews, etc. Foxmilder (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)