This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
The 2015 IBC includes a definitions section. On page 12, it corroborates the article. This is copyrighted material. You have to buy a copy of the building code to be able to see it.--
Achim Hering (
talk)
14:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The 2010 NBCC regulates areas of refuge, under B-3.2.6.9.(1) Testing for Smoke Control. This is copyrighted material. You have to buy a copy of the building code to be able to see it.--
Achim Hering (
talk)
15:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Reference list style
Hello, I added some content with inline citations and now the reference list is split between the more typical citation style and the links that were already there.
Because the previously existing references do not connect to any inline citation, could they be added to a new 'external links' section? I know that the text of the article is based on these sources, but the actual content of these building codes is not straightforward to access online in any case.
Poppvy (
talk)
21:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Appropriate photos?
The photos on this page don't seem particularly relevant to the subject of the article, at least it's difficult to discern their purpose without heavy scrutiny. I'll try to find more appropriate photos on commons. --
PerpetuityGrat (
talk)
15:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I can't tell how they're relevant either. I went back and found the diffs where the images were added, and there was no further explanation in the edit summaries. I'm going to
boldly remove the most egregious ones now, I hope there are some better ones on Commons.
HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (
talk)
00:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)reply