Template talk:Infobox Law enforcement agency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Rationale for this template

There were multiple very similar templates doing very similar things but not exactly the same, and some grouping the same agency attributes differently in different places in the infoboxes.

This template provides a standardisation for articles about all law enforcement agencies, to give their infoboxes a common look and feel, so that readers know what to expect when they look at a an article about a law enforcement agency of any type.

Templates deprecated by this template that I have found are:

No allowance has been made for an image of the agency head in the infobox because it is an infobox for the agency, not a person. If an image of the agency head is relevant to the agency article, then it should be in a relevant section in the article.

Peet Ern (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To do list

Enhancements:

  • microformatting to allow for hCard etc.
  • allow for a common name
    • under formal names before abbreviation Y Done Peet Ern (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • use common name if it exists as sort order for auto categorisation Y Done Peet Ern (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • more than one governing body Y Done Peet Ern (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • review autocat for more sort order options
  • change default "red link" for no suitable category to always be the preferred name structure Y Done Peet Ern (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • sub categorisation for speciality jurisdiction types
  • wikilink text in paramters table on doc page
  • split formed into formed year and formed month day Y Done Peet Ern (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • autocat organisations established in 'formed year'
  • headquarters location map Y Done Peet Ern (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • child agency type/title
  • sworn type/title eg special agent, police officer Y Done Peet Ern (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • unsworn type/title eg support staff Y Done Peet Ern (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • mascot name, type, image
  • make civilian police a subcategory of civilian lea on hold (Category deleted)
  • detail auto category names in doc
  • snapbox mode / slave templates Y Done Peet Ern (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • change restriction to specialisation / restricted to specialist, etc. and cleanup Y Done Peet Ern (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • if division (state) categorisation is available, then do not do the country categorisation Y Done Peet Ern (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • do not bullet list repeating groups if only one item provided in the repeating group Y Done Peet Ern (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • only done for preceding, constitution, minister, chief, and child agency, but that is all I am doing for now.
  • allow alternate size for images Y Done Peet Ern (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • only done for patch, logo, badge, and flag, but that is all I am doing for now.
  • auto categorise for parent agency
  • parent agency type
  • add footnotes for speciality


Bugs:

  • national title needs legal/opsjuris conditional Y Done Peet Ern (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • check autocat for rest of standard category naming conventions
  • need better / more elegant collapsible infobox set up for snapshot Y Done Peet Ern (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • something screwy with new reference parameter

[edit] Overkill?

As can be seen on FIOD-ECD, this template creates multiple strangenesses:

  • It places 4 references to Wikipedia articles into the reference list. I believe these should be made straight links if linked at all - they are certainly NOT references for the article.
  • It places the article in categories that don't exist - apparently conflating the country name with the agency type.

I wonder if it's appropriate to embed this much behind-the-scenes magic in a template. --Alvestrand (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

References:
Resolved.
I am not sure that there is any problem with an article referencing other Wikipedia articles, in this case for definitional things, as distinct from further information which would be links. If the concensus is that they should be links I would be happy to change them.
They really ought to be links, at the moment they are just wikilinks with footnotes containing the same wikilink, which is superfluous to requirements, and is confusing a lot of article. I implore you to just them as wikilinks, please :) --SGGH speak! 14:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed then. I do not have time right now - and dialled into the internet at only 28kbps is not a good feeling - I will fix in the next 36 hours though. Peet Ern (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Peet Ern (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Categories:
The template expects standard categories for the type of article to be in place.
Overkill:
While it does more than most templates, this has been a deliberate strategy. The categristion is a good example. The philosophy is to try to get authors / editors to better categorise articles. I have taken the liberty and created the expected templates for this article.
Cheers. Peet Ern (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Country

If the country is USA, can you make it not automatically add the category? The category for US lea's may be a duplicate. In other words, the department may better fit into a state subcategory, and the country is unnecessary. Also, if I try to enter [[United States|USA]] in the country field, it repeats the brackets surrounding USA. Is there a way you can fix this? I don't know how. Thanks! Cmcnicoll (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As per the template documentation, the template will link so you get double brackets. However, I have now added a new parameter countryabbr, so please try:
| country       = United States
| countryabbr   = USA
Please let me know how it goes.
I will fix the country categorisation versus state categorisation in the next 48 hours.
Peet Ern (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Y Done The template will now only categorise by Country if it cannot categorise by the division (state) in the country. Peet Ern (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] categories

please correct me if i'm mistaken, but for Brazilian Federal Railroad Police it categories it as a Brazilian Federal LEA (Category:Federal law enforcement agencies of Brazil) but leaves it in the Brazilian LEA cat (Category:Law enforcement agencies of Brazil). can you change it so if Federal = yes then it doesn't also put it in the national cat? ninety:one 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was a bit redundant, changed as suggested. Y Done Peet Ern (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The article will not be categorised by country if it can be categorised as National, Federal, or a country division (state).
thank you! ninety:one 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, got another Q. what about Category:Law enforcement agencies of France? here, i've categorized by force name (Police Nationale and Gendarmerie). how does those cats work with this infobox?

The template would have resulted in red linked missing categories, which you could then just create the first time.
I have taken the liberty and put a first cut of the infobox into National Police (France), by way of example, and set up the required first time categories.
Please keep the questions and comments coming. Cheers. Peet Ern (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Post script:

I might have misunderstood your question. The basic LEA infobox does not do anything with LEA based categorisation. However, if you are categorising all articles related to National Police (France), then you migth want to look at Template:Infobox Law enforcement agency/doc#Snapshot information boxes. This will let you put a collapsible transclusion of the main National Police (France) article's infobox into each related article, and have the National Police (France) categorisation done automatically for you.
Peet Ern (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
so Category:French Gendarmerie and Category:French National Police can go under Category:National law enforcement agencies of France. think i get it now. thanks again! ninety:one 16:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you can do that too. Peet Ern (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)