![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 12 |
Hi everyone!
I was looking around at some other WikiProjects, and I noticed that many of them have a Project Specific Barnstar Award. And, seeing that our Project does not have a Barnstar Award, I decided to go and make one. I would like to propose that this become the official Barnstar Award for our Wikiproject. If anyone would like to change the Image shown on the Barnstar or the wording of the Barnstar feel free to do so, the template can be found at Template:Law Enforcement Barnstar.
So without further ado here is the proposed barnstar.
Code= {{subst:Law Enforcement Barnstar}}
![]() |
The Law Enforcement Barnstar
I Mifter ( talk) hereby present you, WikiProject Law Enforcement with the Law Enforcement Barnstar, for your great contributions to the field of Law Enforcement Articles on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Mifter ( talk) 15:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
This is the Barnstar not subseted.
Code= {{Law Enforcement Barnstar}}
![]() |
The Law Enforcement Barnstar | |
{{{1}}} |
I would love to hear your opinion on this proposal :)!-- Mifter ( talk) 15:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I like it! Well done on the creation of it very nice. Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 15:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for being away for ageesssss.
Just recently too busy for Wikipedia etc... :(
But have recently invested in a BlackBerry, so I can hopefully get back into the spirit of things :)
Hows everyone doing?
Regards Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back! Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 07:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The Third Forward has just gone, but you might as well amount some stuff for the next one and hopefully win some awards. Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Also: "once a copper, always a copper". Not spoke to you for long time. How's it going? How's specials? Regards Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 14:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone, per SGGH's request, I have just archived our project's talk page. The archive can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Archive 7, by clicking on the Aug 28th 07 - April 16th 08 link in the archive box at the top of the page, or by clicking the number 7 next to the word archive in the talk page header. Thanks, -- Mifter ( talk) 20:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The barnstar topic above reminded me, I asked the wonderful User:Red Gown if she could design us a new logo for the project. I believe it is coming along though I haven't seen any sketches yet. I shall upload the new one for comments when it is ready. SGGH speak! 07:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened at Talk:Taser#RFC: Criticism. Flatscan ( talk) 03:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Folks,
I have been browsing around Wikipedia now for a few months and am somewhat saddened by the poor state of many stub and start class articles. And, law enforcement agency articles are not immune . . . I do realise though that is an inherent problem with the nature of Wikipedia . . .
It occured to me that if the article creators could be given a running start, that this might help to get better quality articles, sooner.
To this end I have put together an article generator, which will generate stub / start class articles, by allowing article creators to simply fill in a template.
The first cut of this article generating template can be found at User:Pee Tern/Sandbox/Template/Gen stub Law enforcement agency.
An example of a generated article cab be found at User:Pee Tern/Sandbox/Template/Gen stub Law enforcement agency/example.
Initial documentation is available at User:Pee Tern/Sandbox/Template/Gen stub Law enforcement agency/doc.
What do people think ?
Is it viable ?
Comments please, before I do much more work on it.
If it is a goer, what should THE standard be / look like / sections / section titles, etc. ?
Peet Ern ( talk) 07:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Folks,
I refer you to Security police, and see apparently long standing issues in Talk:Security police.
IMHO this article has many issues and is so bad it possibly should be deleted. Does any one have any references to validate that security police is a real term?
A google for security police gives the top hit as the Wikipedia one!
A google for "security police" leads me to believe the term is not common, and only applies in a relatively small number of specific instances, which should be agency/organisation articles anyway.
If I can get hold of something to refer to the term, I might consider doing a dewrite, about the 'term', rather than about 'agencies of this type'. If not, perhaps it should be nominated for deletion?
Peet Ern ( talk) 05:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I must admit, when I first saw the article a while back "Security Police" meant nothing to me. Despite being heavily interested in policing topics I had never come across it, I also question if the title is a "real term". Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 09:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me more and more that the article needs a complete rewrite, more about the term, than about the type of agency, a sort of disambiguation - etomology / history hybrid ? Peet Ern ( talk) 00:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation of articles regarding specific prisons here. -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Folks,
If any one is interested - I have put up a new article Law enforcement agency powers.
I suggest that specific LEA powers are now categorised in Category:Law enforcement agency powers, which I have made a sub category of Category:Law enforcement techniques.
There might be a few more techniques which I will move from techniques to powers over time.
Peet Ern ( talk) 07:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Oak Bay Police Department, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? KenWalker | Talk 17:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Archived. Peet Ern ( talk) 23:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
In light of the above AfD, I think we need to decide on some criteria for notability, or if some already exist then find them, for police departments. Any ideas, do some exist already? SGGH speak! 10:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed As a relatively new wikipedian I am rather confused where the line in the sand regarding notability is drawn. At the top end of the scale, there is no problem with notability, for an obviously notable item it is obvious. The problem is where notability trails off. I have seen a few debates about notability and it seems to me that it boils down more to the number of wikipedians with some interest in the topic rather than consistent intrinsic notability.
I suspect there is somewhere like the village pump where a link to this discussion could be sent to encourage consensus building. I agree to rely only on the "google test" is somewhat ridiculous. SGGH speak! 22:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should draw up a debate over at WP:N? SGGH speak! 22:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have drafted a first cut at User:Pee Tern/Notability (law enforcement agency).
If it has merit, please let me know so that I can move it into WP space.
Comments here please if any before it gets moved for the full discussion.
Peet Ern ( talk) 07:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all can any one tell me what happen of a poll which was conducted in Mid may for a banister?? Suyogaerospace talk to me! 05:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives for the removal of its Featured list status. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. Regards, Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
He everyone, I was just taking a quick look at WP:ASSESS and I have just noticed that there is a new article assessment class. The C-class Article Rating has just been approved and is starting to be used in articles, Now I have already created Category:C-Class Law enforcement articles but now we need to take a serious look at our Start-class and B-class articles and see if any of them would be better suited to being C-class Articles. I have already updated the {{ WPLE}} template to accommodate the new C-class, but I am thinking that we should do something like WP:MILHIST's B-class assessment drive to assess all B-class and Start-class articles and see if they would be better Suited as C-class articles with a Golden Wiki Award for the top assessor with the Project Barnstar and other Awards also being handed to encourage people to participate (Participants Wouldn't have to be in the Project because I do all of the WP:MILHIST's events and I'm not even in the project :P). I look froward to hearing your feedback about this :). All the Best, -- Mifter ( talk) 18:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Two articles within the scope of this project have been proposed for deletion as non notable police departments. -- KenWalker | Talk 23:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I checked the departments in {{ Law enforcement agencies in Canada}} and a number of them are small towns with no claim of notability. I will be Proposing those for deletion within a few days.
Here's the data:
I will leave these alone, they have enough notability to stay or are large city/1,000,000+-population departments which are almost certainly notable if someone bothered to do the research. Since future editors may not be so kind, please make sure these have a claim of notability and if they do not, find and add one.
These claim notability but the notability is marginal or they are part of a medium-sized/100,000+ people town which indicates some likelihood of notability that does not appear in the article. These will be redirected rather than deleted due to a potential need to recreate them in the future once notability is established.
These appear to be smaller municipalities that do not claim notability and qualify for Speedy-A7 deletion, please update them soon if you want them to stay. If they are for towns over 100,000 people, multi-municipality forces, or other unique situations, please beef up the articles and comment below. After a few days I will WP:PROD these.
These are one- or two-line stubs without any claim of notability, they easily qualify for Speedy-A7 deletion. Please write a real article with a real claim of notability and reply below if you want them to stay:
These are already the subject of a PROD or AfD action, please address the concerns of the PRODder or AfDer then either remove the PROD or participate in the AfD. If you remove the PROD, please reply below.
These are already redirects:
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Have your say here
DoubleBlue ( Talk) 06:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
As I have already said, I oppose the deletion of articles about departments with over 100 officers and I will continue to do so. The Service de police de Longueuil apparently has over 500 officers for God's sake! This seems to me to be deletion for deletion's sake. – Necrothesp ( talk) 19:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Given some of the comments above on a webpage devoted to the subject it's probably a losing battle, but the article on Larne Harbour Police, one of Britain's few specialist police forces, is up for deletion. Personally, I think this is the thin end of the wedge and if we allow these articles to be deleted then the deletionists will soon be suggesting that we delete articles even on large territorial forces in the name of the Great (and highly subjective) God "Notability". Oddly, this deletionist mania will almost certainly not extend to the growing armies of talentless minor celebrities who contribute absolutely nothing to our world but are covered extensively by internet fan sites and are therefore considered "notable" by virtue of how many times they appear on Google. A sad comment on Wikipedia today. – Necrothesp ( talk) 16:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hear hear, well written. Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 17:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
I may have missed where this was discussed, but could someone run me through why there is now a C class in assessment? I may just be being dense... SGGH speak! 19:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I have just put FBI Buffalo Field Office up for a peer review and if anyone had the time I was wondering if they could go here and leave a few comments about the article I would much appreciate it. I am hoping to get the article to GA or FA soon and I am looking for outside input to help me improve the article to GA/FA quality. Thanks and All the Best, -- Mifter ( talk) 01:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone, Seeing that many other Wikiprojects have a "Wikipedia Ad" I thought I would create one for us, many users have the template {{ Wikipedia ads}} on there userpages which will display one of the 149 "Wikipedia Ads" at random each time that someone loads the page. Therefore to help increase recruitment and awareness for our Project I have created one of these ads and I have introduced it into the Ad rotation.
Here is the ad:
![]() | |
Wikipedia ads | file info – #149 |
If you want to display this ad ONLY (Not any of the other 148 ads) then add {{Qxz-ads|ad=149}} to your userpage. See my Userpage (
Link) for an example.
I am open to feedback about that ad (I can if anyone wants change the wording of the Ad). All the Best, -- Mifter ( talk) 03:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic, well done mate. Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 17:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 578 of the articles assigned to this project, or 26.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 17:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to get this projects input on the appropraitness of detailed lists within articles on law enforcement agencies detailing all vehciles and officers within the force. I feel such lists are unencylopedic (wikipedia is not a law enfcorcement directory, or even a place to list all the different types of vehicles an agency has.) This is based on the article at Wandsworth Parks Police where I removed two such sections vehicles section and staffing section. These were removed based on my examining of several high profile law enforcement agency articles (and a few other random ones) to see if it was a common practice. It did not appear to be so however my actions has been questioned here. Any input would be greatly aprpeciated, thanks. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 19:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I see no problem at all with providing details of organisation and types of vehicle. Nobody wants names of officers (except maybe the chief officers) or details of individual vehicles, but I see no reason whatsoever to delete useful information. Wikipedia is in the business of providing information, and what is and is not encyclopaedic is highly subjective - it is not defined by any one particular person. – Necrothesp ( talk) 07:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Timothy surely we should have information on a site that I beleive is of interest whether agreed with or not. After all the list of vehicles and staffing has never been challenged until Chris decided to be helpful. TopCat666 ( talk) 12:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
No detailed lists in general:
Lists of types and numbers of vehicle (and other equipment and facilities) - yes - this is encyclopedic. Lists of individual items of equipment etc. - an asset register - NO - these are internal administrative records.
List of key personnel, executives, highly specilist technical personnel, demographic mix of personnel by education, ethnicity, age, etc., - yes - this is encyclopedic. General staff lists - NO - these are admin records.
Peet Ern ( talk) 04:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
FBI Buffalo Field Office is up for GA review, and it struck me as a little odd since branch offices are rarely notable in and of themselves. In a WP:BLP1E-ish fashion this office has been involved with some recent high-profile events, but the guidance in the biography policy is to cover it in the context of those events. The policy obviously does not apply, but the logic does.
Does this project have a separate notability guideline that addresses these sorts of entities? The FBI project is marked as inactive, so I'm asking here. SDY ( talk) 18:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone, well I may have a COI about this being that I wrote the article, I still believe that the article is notable, according to the proposed WP:POLICE
It has or has had a non trivial impact on the fabric, structure, or social norms of the society it is or was part of. This could be a single major impact for a short time or many minor impacts over a long period of time AND it is reasonably distinguishable by its activities from other law enforcement agencies. This latter clause means that many small local law enforcement agencies might not be notable (in their own right). For such agencies see Failure to establish notability below.
Done It is the primary FBI presence in all of Western New York which means that it is involved in many small incidents often, also it is also occasionally involved in major drug/crime busts
see here and even though the article doesn't directly mention the Buffalo Office, Cattaraugus County falls within the Offices territory and as such the FBI agents were probably from the Buffalo Field Offices Drug Program.
It has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources.
Done See
here and
here and these were all in just this month alone and they are what I gathered in less that 5 minutes of searching.
It or any of its personnel have received formal third party recognition for achievements
Done Per
this the Special Agent in Charge Laurie Bennett is the first ever Female Agent to head a Field Office.
And for the Second Criteria
Based on the above criteria, a law enforcement agency will probably be notable if it has one or more of the following indicative characteristics:
The agency passes the following sections
a state, province, other or major country sub division agency - Being a FBI Field Office
a distinguishable specialist agency - All of its specialist programs
the subject of significant social interest - The arrest of the Buffalo Six
operated within large geographic areas or within more than base notable populations (relative to surrounding populations at the time) - The Office is responsible for all of Western New York Including the city of Buffalo
significantly impacted crime, or public order or safety, or key role in a notable tragic event - The arrest of the Buffalo Six
As per the above things I do think that the agency is in fact notable, also User:Somedumbyankee when you failed the article's GA proposal you said that it was non-notable which I have addressed above, but you also said that it lacked Reliable sources. But, being that the office themselves would probably be the best source for information about themselves because the FBI is a federal agency (In many other articles anything wrtitten by a U.S. Federal Agency is considered relielbe and in the Public Domain e.g. there world factbook is used as a reliable source on many articles) and saying that the FBI's information on the Field Offices Website is not reliable would negatively effect the article and as such the encyclopedia I am Ignoring the section of Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources and Wikipedia:SELFPUB criteria 7 that say that the Offices own publications are not considered sources to base an entire article off becuase in all other regards FBI publications are considered reliable sources. And as a result I am asking User:Somedumbyankee to re-evaluate the GA proposal on the content of the article not on the sources ( WP:IAR) and wither or not you beleive the article is notable (If you still need more coverage in secondary sources just tell me and I'll drag up some more info) but based upon the content of the article and wither or not you believe it meets the GA criteria. Thanks and All the Best, -- Mifter ( talk) 21:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for the compliment about the article Peet Ern :) and thanks for the honest review Somedumbyankee:) Mifter ( talk) 21:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Replying on the relevant article's page. SDY ( talk)
Can someone please explain why a well meaning insertion by me a few hours ago into the page on the Special Patrol Group has vanished? It may be that as a novice I made a technical error, but nothing at all from the original was removed and the addition was only put in to add more factual detail, bearing in mind the original work perhaps lacked some basic information about this police unit with much attention instead being given to links to stage and tv shows etc? Patrick56 Patrick56 ( talk) 22:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
If anyone is interested and or working on specialist law enforcement agencies:
Peet Ern ( talk) 08:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
is currently random. i propose:
now, can someone enlighten me as to the difference between municipal and county? and what do we do when there are combined agencies? ninety: one 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm puzzled as to what's wrong with the present categorisation system. There's absolutely nothing random about it, although the whole thing has been complicated by recent infobox templates which automatically add agencies to the higher level category as well as the lower level (something to which I have already expressed my opposition above and which is generally against Wikipedia guidelines). I'm obviously biased, since I largely devised the categorisation scheme, but other than adding an extra level in for state (which is a good idea given the number of articles we now have), I don't see why any titles need to be changed - the state categorisation scheme can exactly duplicate the national scheme.
The correct term is "sheriffs' departments" incidentally (as it is currently named) - "sheriffs" refers to the individuals who head them. And there should definitely be a subcategory of county agencies, which include sheriffs' departments, county police departments and more ("municipal" refers to city and town departments only). School police departments, transit police departments and more come under the heading of specialist police departments - basically, any department which doesn't provide general purpose territorial policing. Combined agencies simply go into more than one category! – Necrothesp ( talk) 08:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Does 'Municipal police departments of STATE' go into County LEAs or is it equal to that? ninety: one 10:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we please ensure that we put together a world view standard, for example, based on the above:
I should be able to have the infobox working to any agreed standard within a 2-3 of days of it being agreed. Peet Ern ( talk) 05:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
PS: I will probably have only very limited InterNet access or even no access for the next three days. So if you guys can settle on and dcoument a world view compatible lea categorisation scheme, and the specific form of this for the US in the meantime, I will happily implement it as soon as after the three days. Peet Ern ( talk) 04:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Since educational institution police departments are almost exclusively an American phenomenon, I think the clearer categorisation would be Category:School police departments of the United States (or by state) and Category:University and college police departments of the United States (or by state), both directly under Category:Specialist law enforcement agencies of the United States (or by state). No need to overcomplicate matters and the two categories should make it obvious what the difference is. After all, non-tertiary departments are usually called "school" departments, whereas tertiary departments are usually named after their institution ("school" only being a colloquialism for tertiary institutions)-- Necrothesp ( talk) 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Folks,
Based on my best interpretation of the above, and the consistent bits of what is already happening, I have started to draft a guideline Categorisation (law enforcement agencies).
Comments here please, before I put it into Wikipedia space as a proposal.
I note a few people are having voluntary or forced Wikibreaks at the moment, so I will not move it for a while.
Cheers. Peet Ern ( talk) 06:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Pee Tern, you seem to be our resident authority on infoboxes. If we must have them, can they please, please be cleaned up to only categorise agencies in the appropriate subcategory and not in every higher category as well. The categorisation system, which used to be relatively simple, has been turned into a complete mess by the proliferation of infoboxes. For instance, Category:Law enforcement agencies of the United States used to only contain its subcategories, with individual agencies going into those - now it contains many agencies which are in it as well as being in the subcategories. This is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. If infoboxes are unable to do this then maybe categorisation should be removed from them and once again left to editors. – Necrothesp ( talk) 13:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Necrothesp, we are NOT in disgreement. {{ Infobox Law enforcement agency}} does not put articles in both the parent and subcategory. There are two reasons why this might be "apparently" be happening:
One: There is no state subcategory available. This would appear to be the case for 40 odd US states. There are only 11 states in Law enforcement agencies of the United States by state for example.
I have checked a few of the "problem" articles and this does appear to be the case, there is no state sub category available, so they were automatically put into the next highest sensible category.
Two: There is a state sub category available but it is not named in a standard way. If the template cannot find the category, it will put the article into the next highest sensible category if there is one.
Ninetyone, there is already a "state" parameter available:
| divtype = state | divname = <!-- name of the state -->
Note that if the above standard is adopted, then I will have to make some adjustments to the categorisation, to include "state" in category names, as distinct, for example from:
| divtype = province | divname = Alberta
for example.
Defuncts - yes this was an assumption I made, that defuncts are only really notable/interesting at higher levels of categorisation. If the consensus is that they should be further subcategorised then I just need to know what the world view standard is and I will make it happen.
Cheers. Peet Ern ( talk) 05:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
PS: I will probably have only very limited InterNet access or even no access for next three days. So if you guys can settle on and dcoument a world view compatible lea categorisation scheme, and the specific form of this for the US in the meantime, I will happily implement it as soon after the three days. Peet Ern ( talk) 04:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello
I have just made a new template, related to the project. Any suggestions/comments/opinions and the like would be appreciated, to help make it better. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 20:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Whats "WM" and "SCS"? Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 15:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see, thanks. Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 16:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
W. Mark Felt has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
...and may be until I get back to University, apologies! I'm sure others can help leads the project for now :) SGGH speak! 20:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Folks,
I have added Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Project standards
Comment?
Peet Ern ( talk) 07:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Folks,
IMHO, our project's main page looks a bit amateurish and even non wikiish !
How about something like User:Pee Tern/New WP LE main page instead ?
I have not been bold at all, just rejigged what is there now.
Cheers. Peet Ern ( talk) 00:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Not a lot of difference in it, in my opinion. Personally I dont think the current one is as bad as you claim, but dont get me wrong - its not that I dislike your work, just I personally dont see any problem with the current one. Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 12:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Contaminated currency, an article about the prevalence of cocaine and other drug contamination of paper currency, including dollars, pounds sterling and Euros. It also addresses the law enforcement activity surrounding these situations. It could use some law enforcement additions. Let me know if this might be something you might like to add. - Hexhand ( talk) 07:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
New York City Police Department Medal for Valor and New York City Police Department Medal of Valor are the same thing. I have no idea which is the correct name but they should be merged. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 12 |
Hi everyone!
I was looking around at some other WikiProjects, and I noticed that many of them have a Project Specific Barnstar Award. And, seeing that our Project does not have a Barnstar Award, I decided to go and make one. I would like to propose that this become the official Barnstar Award for our Wikiproject. If anyone would like to change the Image shown on the Barnstar or the wording of the Barnstar feel free to do so, the template can be found at Template:Law Enforcement Barnstar.
So without further ado here is the proposed barnstar.
Code= {{subst:Law Enforcement Barnstar}}
![]() |
The Law Enforcement Barnstar
I Mifter ( talk) hereby present you, WikiProject Law Enforcement with the Law Enforcement Barnstar, for your great contributions to the field of Law Enforcement Articles on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Mifter ( talk) 15:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
This is the Barnstar not subseted.
Code= {{Law Enforcement Barnstar}}
![]() |
The Law Enforcement Barnstar | |
{{{1}}} |
I would love to hear your opinion on this proposal :)!-- Mifter ( talk) 15:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I like it! Well done on the creation of it very nice. Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 15:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for being away for ageesssss.
Just recently too busy for Wikipedia etc... :(
But have recently invested in a BlackBerry, so I can hopefully get back into the spirit of things :)
Hows everyone doing?
Regards Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back! Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 07:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The Third Forward has just gone, but you might as well amount some stuff for the next one and hopefully win some awards. Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Also: "once a copper, always a copper". Not spoke to you for long time. How's it going? How's specials? Regards Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 14:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone, per SGGH's request, I have just archived our project's talk page. The archive can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Archive 7, by clicking on the Aug 28th 07 - April 16th 08 link in the archive box at the top of the page, or by clicking the number 7 next to the word archive in the talk page header. Thanks, -- Mifter ( talk) 20:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The barnstar topic above reminded me, I asked the wonderful User:Red Gown if she could design us a new logo for the project. I believe it is coming along though I haven't seen any sketches yet. I shall upload the new one for comments when it is ready. SGGH speak! 07:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened at Talk:Taser#RFC: Criticism. Flatscan ( talk) 03:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Folks,
I have been browsing around Wikipedia now for a few months and am somewhat saddened by the poor state of many stub and start class articles. And, law enforcement agency articles are not immune . . . I do realise though that is an inherent problem with the nature of Wikipedia . . .
It occured to me that if the article creators could be given a running start, that this might help to get better quality articles, sooner.
To this end I have put together an article generator, which will generate stub / start class articles, by allowing article creators to simply fill in a template.
The first cut of this article generating template can be found at User:Pee Tern/Sandbox/Template/Gen stub Law enforcement agency.
An example of a generated article cab be found at User:Pee Tern/Sandbox/Template/Gen stub Law enforcement agency/example.
Initial documentation is available at User:Pee Tern/Sandbox/Template/Gen stub Law enforcement agency/doc.
What do people think ?
Is it viable ?
Comments please, before I do much more work on it.
If it is a goer, what should THE standard be / look like / sections / section titles, etc. ?
Peet Ern ( talk) 07:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Folks,
I refer you to Security police, and see apparently long standing issues in Talk:Security police.
IMHO this article has many issues and is so bad it possibly should be deleted. Does any one have any references to validate that security police is a real term?
A google for security police gives the top hit as the Wikipedia one!
A google for "security police" leads me to believe the term is not common, and only applies in a relatively small number of specific instances, which should be agency/organisation articles anyway.
If I can get hold of something to refer to the term, I might consider doing a dewrite, about the 'term', rather than about 'agencies of this type'. If not, perhaps it should be nominated for deletion?
Peet Ern ( talk) 05:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I must admit, when I first saw the article a while back "Security Police" meant nothing to me. Despite being heavily interested in policing topics I had never come across it, I also question if the title is a "real term". Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 09:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me more and more that the article needs a complete rewrite, more about the term, than about the type of agency, a sort of disambiguation - etomology / history hybrid ? Peet Ern ( talk) 00:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation of articles regarding specific prisons here. -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Folks,
If any one is interested - I have put up a new article Law enforcement agency powers.
I suggest that specific LEA powers are now categorised in Category:Law enforcement agency powers, which I have made a sub category of Category:Law enforcement techniques.
There might be a few more techniques which I will move from techniques to powers over time.
Peet Ern ( talk) 07:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Oak Bay Police Department, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? KenWalker | Talk 17:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Archived. Peet Ern ( talk) 23:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
In light of the above AfD, I think we need to decide on some criteria for notability, or if some already exist then find them, for police departments. Any ideas, do some exist already? SGGH speak! 10:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed As a relatively new wikipedian I am rather confused where the line in the sand regarding notability is drawn. At the top end of the scale, there is no problem with notability, for an obviously notable item it is obvious. The problem is where notability trails off. I have seen a few debates about notability and it seems to me that it boils down more to the number of wikipedians with some interest in the topic rather than consistent intrinsic notability.
I suspect there is somewhere like the village pump where a link to this discussion could be sent to encourage consensus building. I agree to rely only on the "google test" is somewhat ridiculous. SGGH speak! 22:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should draw up a debate over at WP:N? SGGH speak! 22:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have drafted a first cut at User:Pee Tern/Notability (law enforcement agency).
If it has merit, please let me know so that I can move it into WP space.
Comments here please if any before it gets moved for the full discussion.
Peet Ern ( talk) 07:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all can any one tell me what happen of a poll which was conducted in Mid may for a banister?? Suyogaerospace talk to me! 05:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives for the removal of its Featured list status. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. Regards, Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
He everyone, I was just taking a quick look at WP:ASSESS and I have just noticed that there is a new article assessment class. The C-class Article Rating has just been approved and is starting to be used in articles, Now I have already created Category:C-Class Law enforcement articles but now we need to take a serious look at our Start-class and B-class articles and see if any of them would be better suited to being C-class Articles. I have already updated the {{ WPLE}} template to accommodate the new C-class, but I am thinking that we should do something like WP:MILHIST's B-class assessment drive to assess all B-class and Start-class articles and see if they would be better Suited as C-class articles with a Golden Wiki Award for the top assessor with the Project Barnstar and other Awards also being handed to encourage people to participate (Participants Wouldn't have to be in the Project because I do all of the WP:MILHIST's events and I'm not even in the project :P). I look froward to hearing your feedback about this :). All the Best, -- Mifter ( talk) 18:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Two articles within the scope of this project have been proposed for deletion as non notable police departments. -- KenWalker | Talk 23:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I checked the departments in {{ Law enforcement agencies in Canada}} and a number of them are small towns with no claim of notability. I will be Proposing those for deletion within a few days.
Here's the data:
I will leave these alone, they have enough notability to stay or are large city/1,000,000+-population departments which are almost certainly notable if someone bothered to do the research. Since future editors may not be so kind, please make sure these have a claim of notability and if they do not, find and add one.
These claim notability but the notability is marginal or they are part of a medium-sized/100,000+ people town which indicates some likelihood of notability that does not appear in the article. These will be redirected rather than deleted due to a potential need to recreate them in the future once notability is established.
These appear to be smaller municipalities that do not claim notability and qualify for Speedy-A7 deletion, please update them soon if you want them to stay. If they are for towns over 100,000 people, multi-municipality forces, or other unique situations, please beef up the articles and comment below. After a few days I will WP:PROD these.
These are one- or two-line stubs without any claim of notability, they easily qualify for Speedy-A7 deletion. Please write a real article with a real claim of notability and reply below if you want them to stay:
These are already the subject of a PROD or AfD action, please address the concerns of the PRODder or AfDer then either remove the PROD or participate in the AfD. If you remove the PROD, please reply below.
These are already redirects:
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Have your say here
DoubleBlue ( Talk) 06:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
As I have already said, I oppose the deletion of articles about departments with over 100 officers and I will continue to do so. The Service de police de Longueuil apparently has over 500 officers for God's sake! This seems to me to be deletion for deletion's sake. – Necrothesp ( talk) 19:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Given some of the comments above on a webpage devoted to the subject it's probably a losing battle, but the article on Larne Harbour Police, one of Britain's few specialist police forces, is up for deletion. Personally, I think this is the thin end of the wedge and if we allow these articles to be deleted then the deletionists will soon be suggesting that we delete articles even on large territorial forces in the name of the Great (and highly subjective) God "Notability". Oddly, this deletionist mania will almost certainly not extend to the growing armies of talentless minor celebrities who contribute absolutely nothing to our world but are covered extensively by internet fan sites and are therefore considered "notable" by virtue of how many times they appear on Google. A sad comment on Wikipedia today. – Necrothesp ( talk) 16:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hear hear, well written. Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 17:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
I may have missed where this was discussed, but could someone run me through why there is now a C class in assessment? I may just be being dense... SGGH speak! 19:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I have just put FBI Buffalo Field Office up for a peer review and if anyone had the time I was wondering if they could go here and leave a few comments about the article I would much appreciate it. I am hoping to get the article to GA or FA soon and I am looking for outside input to help me improve the article to GA/FA quality. Thanks and All the Best, -- Mifter ( talk) 01:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone, Seeing that many other Wikiprojects have a "Wikipedia Ad" I thought I would create one for us, many users have the template {{ Wikipedia ads}} on there userpages which will display one of the 149 "Wikipedia Ads" at random each time that someone loads the page. Therefore to help increase recruitment and awareness for our Project I have created one of these ads and I have introduced it into the Ad rotation.
Here is the ad:
![]() | |
Wikipedia ads | file info – #149 |
If you want to display this ad ONLY (Not any of the other 148 ads) then add {{Qxz-ads|ad=149}} to your userpage. See my Userpage (
Link) for an example.
I am open to feedback about that ad (I can if anyone wants change the wording of the Ad). All the Best, -- Mifter ( talk) 03:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic, well done mate. Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 17:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 578 of the articles assigned to this project, or 26.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 17:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to get this projects input on the appropraitness of detailed lists within articles on law enforcement agencies detailing all vehciles and officers within the force. I feel such lists are unencylopedic (wikipedia is not a law enfcorcement directory, or even a place to list all the different types of vehicles an agency has.) This is based on the article at Wandsworth Parks Police where I removed two such sections vehicles section and staffing section. These were removed based on my examining of several high profile law enforcement agency articles (and a few other random ones) to see if it was a common practice. It did not appear to be so however my actions has been questioned here. Any input would be greatly aprpeciated, thanks. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 19:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I see no problem at all with providing details of organisation and types of vehicle. Nobody wants names of officers (except maybe the chief officers) or details of individual vehicles, but I see no reason whatsoever to delete useful information. Wikipedia is in the business of providing information, and what is and is not encyclopaedic is highly subjective - it is not defined by any one particular person. – Necrothesp ( talk) 07:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Timothy surely we should have information on a site that I beleive is of interest whether agreed with or not. After all the list of vehicles and staffing has never been challenged until Chris decided to be helpful. TopCat666 ( talk) 12:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
No detailed lists in general:
Lists of types and numbers of vehicle (and other equipment and facilities) - yes - this is encyclopedic. Lists of individual items of equipment etc. - an asset register - NO - these are internal administrative records.
List of key personnel, executives, highly specilist technical personnel, demographic mix of personnel by education, ethnicity, age, etc., - yes - this is encyclopedic. General staff lists - NO - these are admin records.
Peet Ern ( talk) 04:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
FBI Buffalo Field Office is up for GA review, and it struck me as a little odd since branch offices are rarely notable in and of themselves. In a WP:BLP1E-ish fashion this office has been involved with some recent high-profile events, but the guidance in the biography policy is to cover it in the context of those events. The policy obviously does not apply, but the logic does.
Does this project have a separate notability guideline that addresses these sorts of entities? The FBI project is marked as inactive, so I'm asking here. SDY ( talk) 18:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone, well I may have a COI about this being that I wrote the article, I still believe that the article is notable, according to the proposed WP:POLICE
It has or has had a non trivial impact on the fabric, structure, or social norms of the society it is or was part of. This could be a single major impact for a short time or many minor impacts over a long period of time AND it is reasonably distinguishable by its activities from other law enforcement agencies. This latter clause means that many small local law enforcement agencies might not be notable (in their own right). For such agencies see Failure to establish notability below.
Done It is the primary FBI presence in all of Western New York which means that it is involved in many small incidents often, also it is also occasionally involved in major drug/crime busts
see here and even though the article doesn't directly mention the Buffalo Office, Cattaraugus County falls within the Offices territory and as such the FBI agents were probably from the Buffalo Field Offices Drug Program.
It has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources.
Done See
here and
here and these were all in just this month alone and they are what I gathered in less that 5 minutes of searching.
It or any of its personnel have received formal third party recognition for achievements
Done Per
this the Special Agent in Charge Laurie Bennett is the first ever Female Agent to head a Field Office.
And for the Second Criteria
Based on the above criteria, a law enforcement agency will probably be notable if it has one or more of the following indicative characteristics:
The agency passes the following sections
a state, province, other or major country sub division agency - Being a FBI Field Office
a distinguishable specialist agency - All of its specialist programs
the subject of significant social interest - The arrest of the Buffalo Six
operated within large geographic areas or within more than base notable populations (relative to surrounding populations at the time) - The Office is responsible for all of Western New York Including the city of Buffalo
significantly impacted crime, or public order or safety, or key role in a notable tragic event - The arrest of the Buffalo Six
As per the above things I do think that the agency is in fact notable, also User:Somedumbyankee when you failed the article's GA proposal you said that it was non-notable which I have addressed above, but you also said that it lacked Reliable sources. But, being that the office themselves would probably be the best source for information about themselves because the FBI is a federal agency (In many other articles anything wrtitten by a U.S. Federal Agency is considered relielbe and in the Public Domain e.g. there world factbook is used as a reliable source on many articles) and saying that the FBI's information on the Field Offices Website is not reliable would negatively effect the article and as such the encyclopedia I am Ignoring the section of Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources and Wikipedia:SELFPUB criteria 7 that say that the Offices own publications are not considered sources to base an entire article off becuase in all other regards FBI publications are considered reliable sources. And as a result I am asking User:Somedumbyankee to re-evaluate the GA proposal on the content of the article not on the sources ( WP:IAR) and wither or not you beleive the article is notable (If you still need more coverage in secondary sources just tell me and I'll drag up some more info) but based upon the content of the article and wither or not you believe it meets the GA criteria. Thanks and All the Best, -- Mifter ( talk) 21:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for the compliment about the article Peet Ern :) and thanks for the honest review Somedumbyankee:) Mifter ( talk) 21:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Replying on the relevant article's page. SDY ( talk)
Can someone please explain why a well meaning insertion by me a few hours ago into the page on the Special Patrol Group has vanished? It may be that as a novice I made a technical error, but nothing at all from the original was removed and the addition was only put in to add more factual detail, bearing in mind the original work perhaps lacked some basic information about this police unit with much attention instead being given to links to stage and tv shows etc? Patrick56 Patrick56 ( talk) 22:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
If anyone is interested and or working on specialist law enforcement agencies:
Peet Ern ( talk) 08:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
is currently random. i propose:
now, can someone enlighten me as to the difference between municipal and county? and what do we do when there are combined agencies? ninety: one 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm puzzled as to what's wrong with the present categorisation system. There's absolutely nothing random about it, although the whole thing has been complicated by recent infobox templates which automatically add agencies to the higher level category as well as the lower level (something to which I have already expressed my opposition above and which is generally against Wikipedia guidelines). I'm obviously biased, since I largely devised the categorisation scheme, but other than adding an extra level in for state (which is a good idea given the number of articles we now have), I don't see why any titles need to be changed - the state categorisation scheme can exactly duplicate the national scheme.
The correct term is "sheriffs' departments" incidentally (as it is currently named) - "sheriffs" refers to the individuals who head them. And there should definitely be a subcategory of county agencies, which include sheriffs' departments, county police departments and more ("municipal" refers to city and town departments only). School police departments, transit police departments and more come under the heading of specialist police departments - basically, any department which doesn't provide general purpose territorial policing. Combined agencies simply go into more than one category! – Necrothesp ( talk) 08:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Does 'Municipal police departments of STATE' go into County LEAs or is it equal to that? ninety: one 10:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we please ensure that we put together a world view standard, for example, based on the above:
I should be able to have the infobox working to any agreed standard within a 2-3 of days of it being agreed. Peet Ern ( talk) 05:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
PS: I will probably have only very limited InterNet access or even no access for the next three days. So if you guys can settle on and dcoument a world view compatible lea categorisation scheme, and the specific form of this for the US in the meantime, I will happily implement it as soon as after the three days. Peet Ern ( talk) 04:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Since educational institution police departments are almost exclusively an American phenomenon, I think the clearer categorisation would be Category:School police departments of the United States (or by state) and Category:University and college police departments of the United States (or by state), both directly under Category:Specialist law enforcement agencies of the United States (or by state). No need to overcomplicate matters and the two categories should make it obvious what the difference is. After all, non-tertiary departments are usually called "school" departments, whereas tertiary departments are usually named after their institution ("school" only being a colloquialism for tertiary institutions)-- Necrothesp ( talk) 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Folks,
Based on my best interpretation of the above, and the consistent bits of what is already happening, I have started to draft a guideline Categorisation (law enforcement agencies).
Comments here please, before I put it into Wikipedia space as a proposal.
I note a few people are having voluntary or forced Wikibreaks at the moment, so I will not move it for a while.
Cheers. Peet Ern ( talk) 06:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Pee Tern, you seem to be our resident authority on infoboxes. If we must have them, can they please, please be cleaned up to only categorise agencies in the appropriate subcategory and not in every higher category as well. The categorisation system, which used to be relatively simple, has been turned into a complete mess by the proliferation of infoboxes. For instance, Category:Law enforcement agencies of the United States used to only contain its subcategories, with individual agencies going into those - now it contains many agencies which are in it as well as being in the subcategories. This is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. If infoboxes are unable to do this then maybe categorisation should be removed from them and once again left to editors. – Necrothesp ( talk) 13:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Necrothesp, we are NOT in disgreement. {{ Infobox Law enforcement agency}} does not put articles in both the parent and subcategory. There are two reasons why this might be "apparently" be happening:
One: There is no state subcategory available. This would appear to be the case for 40 odd US states. There are only 11 states in Law enforcement agencies of the United States by state for example.
I have checked a few of the "problem" articles and this does appear to be the case, there is no state sub category available, so they were automatically put into the next highest sensible category.
Two: There is a state sub category available but it is not named in a standard way. If the template cannot find the category, it will put the article into the next highest sensible category if there is one.
Ninetyone, there is already a "state" parameter available:
| divtype = state | divname = <!-- name of the state -->
Note that if the above standard is adopted, then I will have to make some adjustments to the categorisation, to include "state" in category names, as distinct, for example from:
| divtype = province | divname = Alberta
for example.
Defuncts - yes this was an assumption I made, that defuncts are only really notable/interesting at higher levels of categorisation. If the consensus is that they should be further subcategorised then I just need to know what the world view standard is and I will make it happen.
Cheers. Peet Ern ( talk) 05:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
PS: I will probably have only very limited InterNet access or even no access for next three days. So if you guys can settle on and dcoument a world view compatible lea categorisation scheme, and the specific form of this for the US in the meantime, I will happily implement it as soon after the three days. Peet Ern ( talk) 04:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello
I have just made a new template, related to the project. Any suggestions/comments/opinions and the like would be appreciated, to help make it better. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 20:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Whats "WM" and "SCS"? Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 15:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see, thanks. Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 16:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
W. Mark Felt has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
...and may be until I get back to University, apologies! I'm sure others can help leads the project for now :) SGGH speak! 20:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Folks,
I have added Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Project standards
Comment?
Peet Ern ( talk) 07:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Folks,
IMHO, our project's main page looks a bit amateurish and even non wikiish !
How about something like User:Pee Tern/New WP LE main page instead ?
I have not been bold at all, just rejigged what is there now.
Cheers. Peet Ern ( talk) 00:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Not a lot of difference in it, in my opinion. Personally I dont think the current one is as bad as you claim, but dont get me wrong - its not that I dislike your work, just I personally dont see any problem with the current one. Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 12:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Contaminated currency, an article about the prevalence of cocaine and other drug contamination of paper currency, including dollars, pounds sterling and Euros. It also addresses the law enforcement activity surrounding these situations. It could use some law enforcement additions. Let me know if this might be something you might like to add. - Hexhand ( talk) 07:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
New York City Police Department Medal for Valor and New York City Police Department Medal of Valor are the same thing. I have no idea which is the correct name but they should be merged. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)