Talk:Ten-code/Archive 1

Why the "ten"?

Why do they all start with ten? -- Tarquin 20:00 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

I'm told that in the days when mobile radio equipment used vacuum tubes it took the tx circuit about a quarter to a half second to warm up. This [scheme of first saying "ten", thus introducing a delay,] still allowed the main part of the signal to get through. knoodelhed 06:30, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Experienced radio operators start by saying "Um" because the first part of any transmission is always lost. The way peoples ears work it is helpful to hear a part of a syllable before any meaningful words are said. 199.125.109.70 01:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still present in PTT-Type (Push to talk) communication, there's a half-second delay from when you key down on your microphone to when you actually transmit. The 10 part of each code is to occupy that half second with a hard-syllablic T to help the radio "wake up" and catch your transmission. In case it doesn't, the only part necessary is the second half. Once you've said a code, it's not uncommon to stack codes to speak even faster: "10-14 to Area 2, then 85 to your 20 in approx. 5 mikes. 23 please. Copy?" would read in some circles as "I'm escorting someone to Parking Area 2, then I'll head to your location in 5 minutes. Can you standby where you are?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.24.252.14 (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal experience

In my experience, by far the most common and consistent 10-code in civilian usage has been 10-20; it's been absorbed into such plain speech phrases as "what's your twenty?". Anyone want to expand or corroborate? Andrew Rodland 03:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that 10-4 is probably the most common one I've heard. Though I've always heard it in its full form, in contrast to the "What's your twenty" that people commonly use for 10-20. Aruthra 19:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, 10-21 (ring the office) and 10-19 (come back to the office/yard) are also fairly common. knoodelhed 07:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to go with 10-4 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zab123 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

10-23 usually means standby, 22 cancel, and 10-14 means escort (which may have radio phonetics added to it to indicate what type: Charlie for civilian, Patrick for prisoner, etc.) 208.24.252.14 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "breaker one-niner, what's your twenty?" I say it all the time on CB (yes people still use them...) ZellDenver (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New codes

Hi guys. Recently I am playing a Police adventure game and there's some codes:

10-2: Radio Check
10-4: Well...as usual. "Affirmative"
10-15: Request Suspect information
10-25: Reporting Suspect information
10-35: Request backup
10-97: Arrived at scene
10-98: Handled situation

Are they correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.157.204 (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 10-2 is supposed to mean "I hear you loud and clear", but it is commonly heard during radio checks. In my area, 10-15 means "suspect in custody". - Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.205.92 (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10-15 means suspect in custody, 10-97 and 98 are common too: 10-97 - On Scene, and 10-98, Assignent Completed. 10-35 is what we use for Suspect Information (10-35 meaning confidential info is about to be relayed.) We use California Highway Patrol's 11-Codes as well too: 11-10 and 11-11 for backup (11-10 for a request, 11-11 when officer safety is compromised). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.24.252.14 (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting matchups is with the different Penal Codes from state to state. 415 in a lot of states means a Public Disturbance, 211 for Robbery, 240 for Assault, 242 Battery, etc. 208.24.252.14 (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table format

First of all: I think putting the codes in tables was a good idea for the readability. Thanks for doing the work! :-) However, I suggest we use a little more width on the page, by putting the alternative meanings in a separate column beside the main meaning of each code. That will make the page a lot shorter in the vertical direction, and even more readable. I'll do it myself barring protests, and no one else beats me to it. --Wernher 11:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! It's very functional, and I use it often when hearing the local PD. -Rolypolyman 03:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the table for the 10-0's. --Bwefler 22:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need references

We can only speculate what some of the more obscure ten-codes, such as 10-70, mean unless we have some solid external references to substantiate them. Denelson 83 07:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One organizations' 10-26 may be a Vehicle plate check, another may use it for a Bank Safeguard Detail, another may use it for a vehicle fire. That's the point: 10-code use is so different between organizations, aside from the APCO list there IS NO SOLID EXTERNAL REFERENCE. (Part of why for ICS use in Department of Homeland Security incidents, all radio traffic use of 10 codes are prohibited.)
And no organization is going to voluntarily give up their code sheet for Wikipedia, since the differences in the codes are almost on purpose so the uninitiated do not know what you're talking about regarding situations when you don't want the person to hear confidential information that may regard them. For example, If they hear a call in plain English, 10-15 would become, "Arrest the guy", and gives them a chance to act before you do. If an organization posts that code online as part of public information, all that gang members or organized criminals need to have to know what a cop is going to do to their accomplice, is a simple radio scanner and that listing.
If you insist on references, then what's needed is to erase all the codes that don't follow APCO usage, since they're the only agency that shares their list with the public. (Which is in the best interest of public safety agency usage: Fire Dispatchers, REACT volunteers, private security and Haz Mat teams use them as a jumping off point to make their own lists.) 208.24.252.14 (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. And I agree. Ever sizable city probably has their own codes (official or unofficial), and this list is going to get out of hand unless we stick to standardized codes. Czolgolz (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the APCO list is accessible: Public Safety Dispatch usually has little-or-no risk for jeopardizing officer safety. (Lives aren't at stake when a Comm Center requests a Tow Truck to remove a downed vehicle, or to deploy Tree Branch Service during the Spring.) I agree, the other definitions need pruned down to 2 or 3 similar ones if no references are available, or removed if too many conflicting ones contradict an APCO definition. 208.24.252.14 (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’m also behind standardized codes for the mere fact that most cities may have their own sets of codes.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I think the whole list should be deleted. The meanings are HIGHLY varied, changing literaly from one city to the next by crossing a street. On a national scale, it's even worse. I worked for a dept. in PA where 10-13 was an officer needs assistance code, but when I moved to FL, that code wouldn't get me back-up, it would get me a weather report. The existing list, which has been without references for over a year, has absolutely no value whatsoever. Besides, there is a trend nationally in law enforcement to scrap 10 codes and go to plain speech. I'll watch this for a few days and see if anyone has a reasonable suggestion on how to improve or even if it should be kept. 01:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs)

- Recently, I'd tend to agree. The article should mention that the Ten-codes exist, but have no listing of them... otherwise in it's current form, people are going to keep adding on with their 10-codes from Police Stations, Sheriff Departments, Private Security, Shopping Malls, until a single 10-code could very well mean anything. It's already evident with the 10-codes past 10-40. Also, with the fact that most 10-code sheets are not public knowledge throughout different groups (since I don't want a criminal with a scanner to know that we're heading to the bank to drop off $2,000) there's no way to justify more than one source of the same 10-codes, so the APCO reference being the only one, we don't have enough sources of stable 10-codes for notability purposes. The whole list should go with a link to APCO's current list as a reference. 209.180.155.14 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disturbed at the fact that these are listed on the internet so freely. The 10 codes are for officer and public safety. No police department would ever release them to the public. Therefore, references are a ridiculous. It is my opinion that this article should remove the listed meanings of 10 codes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.242.109 (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10-94 "Drag Racing"

Not that people don't call it drag racing, but shouldn't this be street racing? 06:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a source to call it one way or another? On my 10-code sheet, a 10-94 means an Assignment given to an officer is being delayed or reassigned. 208.24.252.14 (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be known

Many states have now gotten rid of the 10 code, including DC. (Unsigned)

It is decomissioned for a lot of Police Departments, with the placement of Laptop Computers to dispatch vehicles (which conveys a LOT more info than a standard radio channel ever could), all the radios are useful for is calling dispatch to confirm what Penal Code applies to a situation, and to use a Tactical Channel to communicate to other officers in the immediate vicinity on a bust or seizure attempt.

National Incident Management System, the format of all emergency radio and electronic communications used by the Department of Homeland Security completely deprecates the 10-code, preferring "Natural Language" and "Simplified English" communication (Using "En Route", "On Scene", "Task Complete", "In Service", etc.) to accomplish tasks. The reason why 10-codes aren't allowed under NIMS is simple... multiple departments: Fire, Public Safety, Police, FEMA... every set of 10-code would be different, and calling out in code would direct people from other organizations to act unpredictably, causing some to arrest people, others to bring a defibrillator, and others to look for people to escort safely to an exit... all from one Public Safety or Private Security guy calling a 10-26 to report property damage. 208.24.252.14 (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Police language"

Which was merged here had this additonal content.

Police language, also know as police speak, is based American laws and police codes. To begin, American law has it own language and has many difficult words.

Habeas Corpus- A series of writs (official court documents) allowing force to bring prisoners before a court.

Certiorari- A writ requesting view of a transcript from a lower court to a higher court to view previous court sessions.

Miranda rights- Document that serves as a reassurance of basic rights.

~~Corpus delicti- Evidence in a homicide. Basically, it is the body of the victim.~~

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough (talk • contribs) 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A common misconception, Corpus delicti has nothing to do with the body of a victim in a homicide investigation. I won't bother explaining what it really is. /Blaxthos

I don't know who added all of the info above, but it is in some cases misinformed and in others completely wrong. Bleh. /Blaxthos 17:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. These "definitions" are gibberish. "American law has it [sic] own language" is baloney. All but one example cited are Latin and derive from English Common Law. Miranda is named because of the court decision. Blue Sheepdog (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

near as I can tell, that stuff was removed at or before the postings, i.e. over 3 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letter Abbreviations

INJ- Injury

J- Juvenile involved

X- Female involved

UL- Unable to locate

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough (talk • contribs) 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PI- Personal Injury

PDO- Property Damage Only

FI- Field Interview

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.26.66 (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Where are these from? I see these being used more with Penal Codes than 10-code talk 208.24.252.14 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MVA- Motor Vehicle Accident

RES- Recklessly Endangering Safety

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.192.166 (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Code Calls

Code 8- Fire Alarm

Code 10- Bomb Threat

Rich Farmbrough, 00:18 31 December 2006 (GMT).

Now these REALLY ARE not 10-code related. "Code" calls vary far greater between organizations than 10-codes do. Some use numbers, colors, letters, codenames, etc. The most common use is what I hear Cops and EMT personnel use. Code 1, 2, 3 and 4 stand for "conditions", and escalate accordingly. "Code 1" is a low danger situation that still requires attention, "Code 2" is an Urgent Situation that may need additional support, "Code 3" for a life-and-limb emergency that demands attention and requires support, and "Code 4" as "No further action necessary" or "Situation Normal". Any other use of "Code" really varies from there... and is more of a piece for Voice procedure than 10 Codes. 208.24.252.14 (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10-98

This is from "Convoy" (album version, 1976) by CW McCall: I says, "Pig Pen, this here's the Rubber Duck. We just ain't a-gonna pay no toll." So we crashed the gate doing ninety-eight I says "Let them truckers roll, 10-4." This does NOT go in line with the current WP definition of the 98. I'd say, in the song they mean a violent break-in, smashing the gates? -andy 80.129.112.52 11:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe it just means ninety-eight miles per hour? /Blaxthos 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe it was creative license... there's not many Odometer speeds that rhyme with the word "Gate" and sound as impressive as 98. :P 208.24.252.14 (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Originator of civilian 10-codes?

I remember reading an editorial by Tom Kneitel (alias "Tomcat"), editor of CB Radio S/9 magazine, back about 1977, in which he claimed to have published the first-ever list of CB 10-codes in the February 1962 issue of his magazine (memory is a bit hazy on this date, it's now thirty years on). Before adding this to the page, does anyone have access to back issues of S/9 that can check on this assertion? Shalom S.

There was an APCO page mentioning the first published list, but I remember it to be an invention of the Iowa State Patrol... If I can find the source I'll post it as an addition to this page. Doesn't answer the Civilian Codes you refer to, but should be interesting for your reading nonetheless. 208.24.252.14 (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10-100

In the 1970s in Albuquerque, New Mexico, almost all of the rank-and-file officers of the Albuquerque Police Department chose to go on strike due to a labor dispute. The agreed-upon code was the unused (at the time) "10-100" which, when broadcast repeatedly on all four radio frequencies, was the signal for all on-duty officers to drive to the local Fraternal Order of Police Lodge, park their police cars, and begin the strike. They were joined there by off-duty officers. The strike lasted, as I recall, about two weeks, and at the conclusion, the officers voted to accept a monetary proposal by the City that was slightly less than that offered before the strike. Rockyabq 05:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the CB version of the ten-codes, 10-100 means to take a bathroom break. I have also heard "that's a big 10-100", meaning "that's a load of B.S.". Shalom S. 16:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In our department, 10-100 was hot pursuit (sp?). It's generally understood that there is no standardization of ten codes. :-( /Blaxthos 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty easy to see from the article, which shows up to ten meanings for the same code (10-40). However it is downright stupid to throw the baby out with the bath water. 10 codes serve a vital purpose and could easily be standardized. 199.125.109.70 01:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet a vital part of their use is the fact that they aren't. Our code for a run to the bank or prisoner transfer should be different that another agency's. If they're not, then Strong Arm Robberies and Breakouts would be a lot more popular. 208.24.252.14 (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten-codes, "properly known as ten signals"

"properly known as ten signals" this statement is UNTRUE! They are known as Ten-codes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.206.201 (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ten-666

Rickshaw...is that some kind of joke? Czolgolz (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC) In fact, it looks like there are several joke entries in the 10-100 section. Someone should clean that up. Czolgolz (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that was me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.104.9 (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities

I removed 10 codes for Clovis, NM and others. There's not enough room for every municipality. Czolgolz (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Police Codes

These refer to state penal codes and are not a part of the 10-code list (no listing of which state these codes belong to, or even if they're valid in the first place). I believe these should be removed. Variants of the Penal Code list should go there along with what state it's from if you feel strongly it needs to be in Wikipedia, but in my view,Wikipedia is not a directory. A feel for the 10-codes is enough, it shouldn't be an exhaustive reference. 209.180.155.14 (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it, someone didn't agree apparently, hence a revert. I redid it adding a comment. Of course, it'll be a revert again, and I'll get blocked, but they're not 10-codes! This is starting to get stupid.209.180.155.14 (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not that I didn't agree, it at first appeared to be vandalism as deleted text was removed without explaining why. I apologize as I did not see that you made a note about it on the article's talk page. Anyway... I think that if you believe this content should be removed, why not discuss it first with the rest of the editors and reach a consensus first. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 02:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus? I was operating under the "Be Bold" assumption, since it's a small change: removing something that has nothing to do with 10-codes. 10-codes are a form of radio shorthand, meant to reduce the time someone's on the radio to say common stuff. 10-codes are NOT laws. Penal Codes ARE laws, where the prior info had a reference to 5150: Someone who's mentally ill being sent to an institution without their consent. That's an actual LAW, usually in a state's Health and Safety Code.

The rest of them I'm sure are laws too, but the author failed to indicate which state they belong in, so I can't say one way or another. Penal Codes vary from state to state: 5638 may be the PC reference for Marijuana Possession in that guy's state... in California, it's in the Health & Safety Code Section 11357. 5638 doesn't exist in California, the closest section, 5000-5088 deals with administering Correctional Facilities. (See for yourself: [[1]]) Because it's right in his state, doesn't mean it's right for mine, and vice versa, I'm not going to post my state's reference, because outside of California, it means nothing. Either way, H&S Codes or Penal Codes do not belong here in the 10-code article from my prior comment that Wikipedia is not a directory. This isn't meant to be a cheat sheet to someone listening in to a police scanner... there's plenty of sites for that already online, many of them state-specific.

But once more with the flaming hoops to jump through. I'm a vandal then. Fine, the changes are once more reverted. I give up. I've written six paragraphs of crap over two days to justify my deleting one list of irrelevant information. Someone else can delete it then. Or consensus can be found, or perhaps a vote, or ask Arbcom to solve this. You win. 209.180.155.14 (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of 10-codes changes from department to department. For instance a 10-90 might be a suspicious person in one department, but in the adjacent city, a 10-90 might be a bomb threat. Since there is no uniformity in use of ten codes, I question the wisdom in even publishing a list of what 10-codes mean. It is very unlikely that a reader even lives in an area were this particular set of 10 codes is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.86.34 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13 codes and 18 codes

The references to 13 codes and 18 codes return a 404 Error Code. I'm removing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucalipe (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

420 (cannabis culture)

The use of "four-twenty" to refer to cannabis or possession of same had often been claimed to be part of the pattern of using California penal code sections as codes on police radio. I note that it isn't mentioned on this page with the other penal code material and the 420 (cannabis culture) article seems to list other, different origins - most of them also speculation. Is there a source to claim four-twenty as a police radio code, or is this merely the stuff of slang and urban legend? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a myth. Code 420 in the CPC deals with unlawfully preventing entry to public land. Blue Sheepdog (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major clean up

Doubt anyone will read this....but a list of the 10 codes needs to be removed from this article. It is a mess. Note WP:NOTDIRECTORY CTJF83 chat 07:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is wholly unreferenced and is a dumping ground for unreferenced "this agency says this" entries. It's a disaster. The biggest problem is that it is trying to be a directory of 10 codes and not an article about the topic of 10 codes. All that crap needs removed. A couple of examples to demonstrate the concept is all that should be here. This is like writing an article about the phone directory and then listing every possible entry. And some editors need to understand that this isn't trivia about their particular location. So what if your local dept. uses a particular code differently than everyone else. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Haiti earthquake was a disaster. This is nothing but a little too much info. Instead of totally meat-axing it, how about a reasonable compromise: There's already an external link to the 10-codes, so just have a summary of the best-known ones in the article text: 10-4 ("acknowledge"), 10-9 ("say again"), 10-20 ("location"), etc. If there are significant (i.e. widely-used and verifiable) alternate usages that contradict the external link, those could maybe be discussed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we avoid being too literal, this is a disaster area. The code section is completely unreferenced and nothing but a mishmash directory. A summary is a much better way to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree to a summary section, if we get sources. CTJF83 chat 19:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say use the APCO standard ones (which we can source), list no more than 10 (probably more like 5) as examples and be done with it. Maybe hidden instructions that this isn't a grab bag for every lone dept. example we can find would be a good idea too. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big 10-4! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur CTJF83 chat 19:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've had no other input, and no input opposing it. Can we consider this the consensus view and move forward with it? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say 6 days is more than long enough for input, go for it. CTJF83 GoUSA 22:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, But an article about Tencodes is pointless without a list. It's like an article about the Latin alphabet, withought the alphabet. ZellDenver (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there should be a list, but it shouldn't be a long one. Can we get consensus for a list with comments at the top and bottom saying not to extend it beyond, say, ten entries, and that all entries must be in common use in multiple locations? 212.159.69.4 (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC) (Edit: err, that was me. JulesH (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

A list was tried, using the APCO ones. Then it became a dumping ground for every example of some departments own unique meaning for each one. It turned into a horrible, unsourced mess. The article gives a link to the APCO ones if someone feels a burning desire to go look them up. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree a clean up was needed, and understand Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory, but I do miss the list, and would personally like to see a Wikipedia link to another page with the standard list (excluding what certain 10 codes mean in Utah or Bakersfield, CA, etc) JMHO! Trista (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to it, but it would take constant clean-up of all the unsourced trivia. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I looked at this article more often -- I'd have opposed removing the list. A link to only the APCO codes is much less useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxHarmony (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dumping ground of every unsourced, trivial use of anything ever used by some cop somewhere was even less useful and a bigger mess. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I for one agree with taking them out. Thanks to all for dumping the 10-code list once and for all... I myself contributed to the prior list (read my anger above: 209.180.155.* IP comments were all made by me above.) and reading it after a while was an excercise in demonstrating how different and unorganized they are from organization to organization just by reading the 10-code page on Wikipedia alone. A King Solomon solution is sometimes best. I think a radio hobbyist site is a better place for such lists, and could probably be more accurate with regional 10-code lists instead of a single global one, which we all proved is impossible to maintain. Wikipedia details the purpose of 10-codes, rather than the content of such codes themselves, so mission accomplished. 209.180.155.12 (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DICK. I know it's a dick-move saying it myself, but as I can read from the above blank replies, you may not be getting it. I don't think anyone wants to reply to you on here, re: the 800-lb. gorilla effect. Play King Solomon yourself; it's clear you're impassioned about this. Edit something you're not elsewhere on Wikipedia and be more neutral. If people want expert opinion, chime in of course... I don't care either way, I just think it might help you to relax a little and enjoy editing more. Pepper2k3 (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to look for a list of 10 codes, and no list!!! No doubt there are many people expecting to find it here, so this is a major gap in the article. Maybe it was a mess before, but instead of a complete removal, just clean it up and then control it. A valid referenced addition that is within WP scope shouldn't be removed, even if some editors think so. I will restore the APCO list. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly found the discussion and see that the consensus was to remove it. I reverted your change and invite you to see if you can establish a new consensus. But just editing against it isn't the way to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the discussion again: the consensus is the opposite. Most agree that there should be a listing (Baseball Bugs, CTJF83, ZellDenver, 212.159.69.4, 24.176.191.234, MaxHarmony, and myself). Even your own comments from 19:23, 11 February 2010, support the APCO list. Yes, all agree it was an unreferenced mess before. My last addition was clearly referenced and concise. Unless you can provide me a different reason why the APCO list shouldn't be included, I will restore it tomorrow. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try looking again. Most agreed APCO was reliable and pretty much THE source, but I don't see an agreement to add back in the whole list you put in. I suggested 5-10 examples. Bugs and CTJF83 immediately agreed to that. The discussion stayed open for a week or so before anything was removed. YOU never took part in any of it that I see. Then the occassional editor came in and questioned the decision but never really engaged in a discussion about it. So even if you try to say "some were agreed to", it was 5-10 examples, not the 40 that you ended up shoving back into the article. Throwing the 40 back in 1) starts taking us back to the WP:NOTADIRECTORY reasoning that was initially cited. 2) It breeds the environment we had before where people started adding everything under the sun to the list. Again, I wouldn't have an objection to a few examples, but a list is not the way to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the other hand, you can't use the foregoing discussion as proof for a consensus against the APCO list itself. In answer to the 2 points: 1) Adding the original 40 APCO codes definitely does not violate WP:NOTADIRECTORY. That info is pertinent and integral to the article. Everyone expects such info here. 2) Adding "everything under the sun" is a constant occurrence on WP. That is what WP is about and you shouldn't stop people from doing that! You just have to manage and control what and how it is added. That applies to this article as well. If it's any help, I'll add it to my watchlist and monitor any additions. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 23:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of examples that some of the editors you are citing agreed to was 5-10. Not 40, not the whole list. Why don't we wait for input from some of the others before changing what has stood for the last 10 months? I also think you are dead wrong about the notion that we shouldn't stop people from adding everything under the sun. Yes, we should. We have policies to prevent that. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We also have policies to prevent deletions. As per WP:TASTE: "A section that fully conforms with Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion must remain, even if one or a few people do not like it." As I stated before, the original 40 APCO codes do not violate WP:NOTADIRECTORY and need to be added to make the article complete. I'll add it again and would love to see what, if any, reactions it will elicit on this talk page by others. I certainly would welcome more input... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, TASTE isn't a policy or even a guideline. It is an essay. I disagree with your interpretation of NOTADIRECTORY (an interpretation you keep stating as fact). In any case, what is the problem with listing a few examples and providing the link where people can go view the entire list if they want? Why is that so horribly objectionable? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to examples (they aren't here anyway), it's just that I consider it incomplete. Well, I can see we won't agree on this subjective issue, so I won't bother with your page anymore... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now you want to sink to snide bullshit like ownership accusations? Since you decided to toss AGF out the window......Look again sunshine. I wasn't the one who proposed it in the first place. And now you want to pretend like you're being reasonable? You haven't even entertained the suggestion that was made and agreed to by others about a using a few examples and a link to the rest. Where have you bothered to discuss it? It has been a "I want it all" proposition for you since the start. I've talked about a middle ground more than once. You have barely even acknowledged that. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article on 10-codes, with a section called "List of ten-codes" should contain at least one 10-code. Otherwise... what are we doing here?? I have no idea what politics are going on with this page, but this is just silly. Just delete the article and be done with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.4.215 (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5 examples, along with an actual reliable source. Personal web pages fail RS . Don't add things without sources. It's not just common sense, it's policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The citation you removed was used as a reference by one of the other sources cited by the article. I admit it was unprofessionally presented, but I believe the content was accurate. The section as it stands is mis-named. Instead of "list of 10-codes", it should probably be "examples of 10-codes" as a comprehensive list is not provided, though we now do finally have some examples, which is really all I wanted to see when I first came to this page. 158.64.4.215 (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter if you or I think it was accurate or not. It wouldn't pass RS. Who is opposing changing the name of the section? I think your suggestion is fine. Feel free to make the change. Providing a reliable source and a few examples is what I've proposed all along. Some here have an all or nothing mindset, others just seem to complain and offer no solutions. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nine code?

I came looking for it, & found a major omission: what do the codes mean? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this article tell you about nine codes? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not about nines: 1 missing from "10 code" =9.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking what each 10 code means? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it exactly. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be in the article, but some busybodies removed it, thus rendering the article pretty much useless. The last version that contained the codes was this one:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, Bugs. Have a carrot on me. ;p Wile E. Roadrunner ^{Acme is great, ask me why} 22:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On closer examination, the list's removal is still visible, in the previous section. Maybe Niteshift can explain the value of an article about 10-codes that doesn't contain a list of 10-codes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Bugs can stop with the attitude, stop the name calling, read the discussion himself and see that it wasn't only Niteshift. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe Niteshift will remind Bugs that he agreed to the consensus, then left without helping it be implemented. Only to return to start name calling. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What tipped the scales today is that the link to the list in PDF form, which was presumably supposed to replace the embedded list, doesn't work. I don't mind having a list being linked to, but it needs to be useable. And looking at the article today, there should be a bullet-pointed list of at least the most obvious ones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, clicking on that link is an incredibly difficult thing to do. I can't imagine how someone who navigated their way to this article could possibly figure out clicking on the link. (yeah, that's sarcastic, but since you decided civility didn't belong here, why should I bother) Yes, we (including you) did agree to a list of 5-10 examples and some hidden instructions.... and then you disappeared, only to return to start name calling and finger-pointing. I guess your agreement didn't include you actually sticking around to discuss which 5-10 should be the examples or actually putting them into the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me, I just assumed you all would do it right. But I can't get the link to work. Hence it's useless. If you can find a conventional web page, rather than a PDF, maybe it will work. And I don't see a bullet-pointed list of 5-10 examples, but maybe I missed it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And why don't you see that list of 5-10? You seem to want to make me responsible, while forgetting that you were part of that agreement, then left without doing anything. Well let's fix that Bugs. What 5-10 would you propose should be the examples? Or do you want to just keep blaming me? BTW, I find it difficult to believe that the link doesn't work when you click on it. I've checked it on my laptop and iPad and it worked fine on both devices. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see a bullet-pointed list of some other codes, but none of the article's subject, the 10-codes. There are a few embedded in the text, which effectively hides them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh......AGAIN, I will ask What 5-10 would you propose should be the examples? Do you want to work on fixing the article or just complain? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Censoring the List has effectively destroyed this article

Well, thank you a frell of a lot for that. "This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience" - sounds like censorship to me. I came here looking for a list of codes, the history is somewhat interesting but the article is far from complete without said list. I realize that there is considerable variance between jurisdictions, yet there is also considerable similarity - nearly to the point of standardization for many codes. A comparison in table format would be useful. And as to "interesting only a specific audience"? What percentage of the population ( US or otherwise ) has been involved with or is interested in: Police, Fire-Fighting, Disaster Response, Emergency Medical Services, Radio Codes, Armed Forces, Security (warehouse, casino, personal-bodyguard, secret service, etc.), Corrections, Writing about any of these topics including the following genres: Macabre, Mystery, Legal, Science Fiction ( the future is built upon the present ), Comedy, Romance, etc. - Additionally there are people who like to read said genres and while ten codes are not fully standardized, and are frowned upon in most jurisdictions, they are still very much in service - thus a listing would be quite useful. And where does information belong if not on Wikipedia? Censoring this list is crap, no matter what problems the list might have had. If you had problems with an article on WWII or specifically the Holocaust would you REMOVE important sections just because you had problems agreeing and formatting them? No, you would find references as needed but leave the section intact unless it was outright speculation. Sorry guys, this time EDITORS=FAIL.

Here's how you do it. You create the full table with all the placeholders: 1-1 to 1-99. Any codes that don't seem to have a consensus you indicate meaning varies greatly by jurisdiction and give a couple sample meanings for that code. For the codes that have mostly similar meaning you can put a reasonable translation - certainly everything on the APCO list should be on this page. This is a reference site that is not supposed to discriminate based on subject, or how narrow the perceived interest might be in said subject - which, by the way, how the hell would you know how broad or narrow the interest is in something unless you allow people the opportunity to access the information for themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.194.15 (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does info belong if not on Wikipedia? If all information belonged on Wikipedia, there would be no AfD process, would there? We wouldn't have notability guidelines, would we? Clearly, even Wikipedia doesn't think that all information belongs on Wikipedia. If it were limited to the APCO uses, I might consider it viable, but history has shown us that cleaning up the dreck from every little "this dept. uses this one" entry is a steady job and not really worth it. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, an encyclopedia is a primer of information. It might be comprehensive in that it covers info from all viewpoints, but it is never exhaustive. If you want to make the exhaustive, be-all, end-all resource to 10-codes used throughout the world, no one is stopping you from doing so. Host your own site and go make it, or if you're short on cash, Wikia would love to have niche info like this (if it isn't already on there.) Second, forgive my geocentristic point of view if you must, but in the United States with federal guidelines concerning the Incident Command System and National Incident Management System, Ten-codes are deprecated exactly for that reason. So many agencies have different uses that one group's 10-100 (Lunch Break) is another group's 10-100 (mental patient unsupervised with a sharp object) and is another group's 10-100 (traffic collision involving loss of life or limb). Different modes and severity with one statement means chaos when multiple groups need to work together (imagine 20-30 people swarming upon your location ready for anything... when you're sitting at lunch eating).

Telling officers, staff, and volunteers to suspend Ten-codes during an incident is impossible when they're your daily lingua franca; you're going to slip and use them. I don't see an issue of a short list of 5-7 Ten-codes to show the beginnings of what a list looks like, but in reality Ten-codes shouldn't be used anymore, it's too confusing. The initial purpose was to keep laypeople from being a part of a radio conversation by overhearing it (both on site and over a scanner). That's not as much of a problem today, as most police and law enforcement do the majority of communications on computers in their car (which are digital, encrypted and not available to laypeople) and just use the radio for mobile unit movement and tactical placement.

Finally, none of this is censorship. Removing unsourced information, conflicting information that is clearly original research, and above all, removing a list from an article without deleting the article that still adequately describes what Ten-codes are is not censorship. If someone pushed to AfD/CSD this article or delete information because authorities would prefer that citizens not know how Ten-codes work, that would be censorship. That isn't happening here. 71.84.227.69 (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, fwiw, that the article needs the basic APCO list. The self-justifying words on the talk page illustrate the lack of common sense that led to the list's removal. When Wikipedia has been completely cleansed of all that pesky information, it will cease to be useful. Adallas (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"self-justifying", "lack of common sense".......nothing like coming in and going on the (personal) attack, huh? Guess what? There was a consensus reached, based on more than your personal definition of common sense and WP:ILIKEIT. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not in case you haven't already: WP:ISNOT. Of particular note, Wikipedia is not a Guidebook or an Indiscriminate Resource of Information. 71.84.227.69 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to problematic editing of information is not to remove the information. There would be no vandalism of articles if all the articles were removed, but that doe not make for a very good encyclopaedia. I am not sure I fully understand the problem, I only came here to look up a specific code, but I undertand there are a great number of variant codes. Surely a simple answer to this is to list a specific example and state it as such. The ACPO official code? Or even more than one example which should make it clear that local variants should not be added to the listing. Spinning Spark 23:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list under External links for both APCO's first published Ten-code list from a archived newsletter, and APCO's 'official' list snapshot at the Internet Archive. If people want APCO's list, it's not hard to find. And there is no way to "make it clear" to anonymous users or enthusiasts that the list is at a finished point and should not be filled with local variants (remember 'anyone can edit'). It is possible to have editors kill a list that gets out of control again, however. 71.84.227.69 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any room for a set of United Kingdom Police 10 Codes (Basic set in use from 1988 - 2000)

10-1 Police Officer Requires Immediate Assistance Because he/she, or other persons with him/her are in imminent danger of bodily harm.
10-2 Road traffic accident.
10-3 (Alfa) Audible Alarm.
10-3 (Bravo) Bleeper Alarm Activation.
10-3 (India) Intruder Alarm Activation.
10-3 (Papa) Personal Atack Alarm Activation.
10-3 (Foxtrot) Automatic Fire Alarm.
.
10-4 Welfare Check to an unaccompanied female broken down..
10-5 Not currently in use.
10-6 " " ".
10-7 " " ".
.
10-8 PNC/Crime Information System Computer Check. (Officer requesting information for a stop check in the street or for investigation)
10-9 Contact By Appropriate Means.(usually call using a mobile phone or land line)
10-10 Confidential Message - Use Handset (Officer to ensure audio from radio not listened to by persons close by).
10-11 Police officer requires silent back-up to assist in the arrest of persons, Interrogation of suspects dealing with a hostile crowd etc, The circumstances of which do not amount to a 10-1 call and the desire is not to exacerbate the situation..

In other cases, when the attention of an operations room controller is required urgently, the word URGENT should precede any verbal communication.

Replacement with plain language Q/A

I noticed there is an odd out-of-place paragraph dead center... It has been there for a while so I decided to ask about it instead of removing it right away. What is it. Jcmcc450 (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC) -- End -- 18:14 14th May 2013[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.191.189 (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy-up

Moved things around a bit, and took out a recently added (unofficial) big list of codes. Snori (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ten-code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071013030055/http://spiffy.ci.uiuc.edu:80/~kline/Stuff/ten-codes.html to http://spiffy.ci.uiuc.edu/~kline/Stuff/ten-codes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject New Zealand

What the hell do ten codes have to do with New Zealand? They exist around the world. 71.84.227.69 (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC):[reply]

Agree, fixed. Snori (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ten-code. 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/20071013030055/http://spiffy.ci.uiuc.edu/~kline/Stuff/ten-codes.html to http://spiffy.ci.uiuc.edu/~kline/Stuff/ten-codes.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.911dispatch.com/reference/tencodestudy.pdf

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) 07:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]