Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (law enforcement agency categories)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconLaw Enforcement Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

UK feedback[edit]

We don't have much need for guidlines here, as unlike the US there are no articles left to be created. But it's worth doing anyway.

  • Major issue: Do we continue to distinguish between law enforcement agencies and police forces? I think not. The difference is by history, not by design:
    • The distinction is not at all useful,
      • It is very useful While all police agencies are law enforcement agencies, many law enforcement agencies are definitely not police. Police have powers and authority for public order and safety for example, but many law enforcement agencies do not.
        • More Also, if idiomatically/colloquially they are known locally as police forces in the UK, and for example as police departments in the US, then it is probably correct to categorise them at lower levels of categorisation as such, reflecting the encyclopedic content under the overall world view. Note that if for example, the countries within the UK have law enforcement agencies other than police forces which are not whole of UK law enforcment agencies, then we also need a category level between of Category:Law enforcement agencies of country within the UK Peet Ern (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A large number of "police forces" are not even "police forces", but "groups of constables", and
      • This is just good encyclopedic content They can still be a law enforcement agency, but with limited powers. Indeed this is part of where I would like to eventually get with Law enforcement agency powers for example, describing the full range, and allocation of powers given to various types of agencies.
    • Those which are "groups of constables" do not have full police powers
      • Another parameter This structure should perhaps be another parameter in the template?

I think it might be time to withdraw the Police force categories altogether. However, this would need discussion at WP:LE and I will link from it to here and also notify other UK police editors.

That's all I think! ninety:one 20:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, provost does not mean Military Police as in the US. Er, yes it does! Probably more so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although unsourced, Provost (military police) says "In the UK, "provost" is officially used predominantly to refer to military prison services". That's what I was going off, I would much prefer "Military provost" over "Military police" as it is less confusing. ninety:one 20:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not accurate, I'm afraid. "Provost Marshal", "Provost Sergeant", and RMP companies are called "Provost Companies" - even the published history of the RMP is called Bloody Provost. Not accurate at all. I do prefer "military police", but it's certainly not true to say that provost does not refer to the military police. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that clarification. It's not really worth changing to Military provosts, and in UK useage there is very little scope for confusion. ninety:one 21:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree about getting rid of the "police" designation. "Law enforcement agency" is not a term generally used in the UK, but police force is. And a police force is very specific - a (generally) uniformed body of constables responsible for maintaining public order and investigating crime. A law enforcement agency is much more general, since it includes any body responsible for enforcing laws. In actual fact, most of the forces we have articles about do have or had full police powers and could be regarded as police forces. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only half of these (and one of these) are legally "police forces", can call themselves "police" and have full police powers. I think the distinction between the "territorial police forces" and "the rest" is important, and I can see why the territorial forces would deserve a separate category, but including ports, parks et al. is as confusing as including HMRC or similar. Plus, there is no distinction ninety:one 21:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 59 modern organisations, 39 are territorial police forces. A number of the remainder have full police powers on the property they police and are therefore "police" (if they weren't legally allowed to call themselves police then surely they wouldn't be allowed to continue to do so!). Of the 53 forces listed here, 43 were territorial forces and most of the rest had full police powers. The distiction between "territorial" and "specialist" forces should be made, but most of them are police. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indented bold comments above by Peet Ern (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whilst I appreciate your intentions, that comes rather close to refactoring my comments, especially given the use of bullet points. Perhaps you could find a different way next time?
Uh?! . . . sorry mate, I was just following your lead . . . Peet Ern (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will happily accept the consensus over names. Perhaps you are right. An additional parameter in the template (that autocats to a Specialist police forces of the UK or country) would be very useful - there are 2 main types: parks and ports. However, special police force has a proper meaning already and could be easily confused. Any other ideas for a cat name?
I will have to think about this one. Special police force looks like a bit of a mix up of Specialist law enforcement agency and real special police. I think it needs a rewrite. Peet Ern (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ninety:one 21:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York State categorisation[edit]

I've just discovered (much to my amusement) that New York State has five levels of LEA - State, County, City, Town and Village. Now whilst it's not exactly clear how many operate at the same time - probably only two of City, County and Village - the standard US system is confusing when applied here. May I suggest a bespoke system for NY, where Category:Municipal police departments of New York is cleared out and subdivided into Category:City police departments of New York, Category:Town police departments of New York and Category:Village police departments of New York? ninety:one 22:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it five or three levels, for example:
  • State
    • County
      • Town
      • Village
    • City

Peet Ern (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this could in fact apply to all or most US states, not just New York. I'm really not sure that we need to subdivide Category:Municipal police departments of New York any further. It just means a police department that answers to the authorities of a community as opposed to a wider administrative body such as a county or state. Does it add to the categorisation scheme to split them? I don't really think so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a lot of time on US LEA articles, and I'm almost certain it's unique to NYS. Having looked into the subject a bit more, this is the system for New York:
  • State
    • County
I assure you it's not unique to New York. Towns and villages are found in many US states, although the terms mean different things in different places, and many of them have police departments. I really do see no need for further subdivision. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that no other state, to my knowledge, has town and village police departments operating concurrently. Anyway, no worries. Peet, the autocat isn't working for Category:Municipal police departments of New York, they're going into Category:Law enforcement agencies of New York... ninety:one 23:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[odent] Municipal issue: Yep I have not implemented it yet. The same for Sheriffs. You can have a play with {{User:Pee Tern/Sandbox/Template/Infobox Law enforcement agency}} in the mean time if you like. It will do municipals and sheriffs. An agency is categorised as municipal if its subdiv type is either city or town. I can easily make this include village too if that is what should happen. I hope to finish this off by late next week, and corrections and probation too. Peet Ern (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the matter of levels, my point above is, do cities and counties have equal status in the hierarchy of government, or are cities subordinate to counties. I assume above that town and villages are subordinate to counties ? In Australia, while do not have police forces at this level, our general jurisdicational structure is essentially:

  • Country
    • State
      • Shire
        • Town
        • Village / Community
      • City

The heirarchy is important because if city is subordiante to county then a missing city will cause the article to be cated under county, where as if city is subordinate to state then a missing category will cause the article to be cated under state.

Peet Ern (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cities are subordinate to counties, but their relation ship with towns and vilages is a little more confusing. Probably best if you look for yourself... Administrative divisions of New York. Good luck! ninety:one 19:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh!? (If the USA rationalised its layers of government to only three, and amalgamated social order and support delivery generally to state, it could probably pay off its entire new budget deficit from the savings.) I think for categorisation of law enforcement agencies we do not even try to go there. This level of specific minutia cannot be trapped by categories. I suggest that we categorise by municipal (city, town, village) or by county, that is county, city, town, village are all treated equally for categorisation purposes, and for general world view understandability of categories, and if the relevant category is not there at the time then autocat will escalate to state. Peet Ern (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(law_enforcement_agency_categories)&oldid=359347746"