Talk:University of New Haven Police
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Merge
[edit]This is an old merge request. It appears [[1]] that the Department is seperate from the West Haven police. I think it could stand on its own... thoughts? Markvs88 (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- The merger proposal discussion is at Talk:University of New Haven#merger proposal, open since October 2008, but with some current discussion. Please continue there. --doncram (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus was to keep as they are a constabulary force for the town. Markvs88 (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Equipment & programs
[edit]As shown on the Los Angeles Police Department article and many other pages, equipment and programs are encyclopedic. Markvs88 (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- That comment relates to my having removed/reduced the inventory-type list on this article, which Marvs88 just restored, including restoring a typo that i had corrected. The LAPD article does not provide a count of the number of cars or other equipment comparable to the minor equipment mentioned here; its discussion of resources is much higher level than this and could be regarded as cool and interesting by some readers (e.g. about its types of helicopters and the non-denied drone). Asserting that a campus police department has cars is no more interesting than saying its office has desks and computers or that its officers wear clothes. It is not appropriate to provide inventory counts, which surely becomes outdated and impossible to maintain. This would fall under what wikipedia is not, like it is not a directory (wp:NOTDIR, etc.). And, I am not sure, but I think the statements are unsourced and/or outdated.
- About programs, to highlight a routine rape prevention program, standard on all university campuses, gives undue emphasis and is not worth mentioning on its own. If there is an unusual large incidence of that crime in this police dept jurisdiction that could be supported by sources, and/or this is truly an important specialty or an unusual program, that could be mentioned with appropriate sourcing. But i don't believe it is unusual or anything. It would also be a much lesser program, I would hope, than other initiatives of this campus police office. The equipment and program mentions here are simply not encyclopedia-worthy. Why do you want to preserve them? Honestly i am puzzled. --doncram (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please disclose if you are a police officer or have other substantial connection to this campus police department, per wp:COI disclosure policy? I don't want to pry, and you don't need to say if your involvement is just at the level of perhaps being a current or former student at the school. But if you have more substantial involvement like you work there or know people there, could you please disclose that (or walk away from this article). --doncram (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, I am not a police officer, and I have no connection to West Haven/UNH whatsoever. Nor (for the record) do I have any real relationship for the Washington Bridge or any other article I have not seen eye-to-eye with you on. Back at you: were you ever busted by the UNH Police Department? I am, however, tired of you dropping talk discussions (you haven not replied to our discussion about this for over 2 weeks: Talk:University of New Haven) and then make the changes you want anyway. BTW, what you consider cool is decidedly UNencyclopedic and given your penchant for creating stubs I'm shocked you even care about someone adding citable content. I mean, you should really be backing me as they'll be added to the NHRP in 2030 or so, (with a typo saying they're in North Haven, but whatever). Markvs88 (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- As far as National Register listings go, at least the shitty infobox generator and the idiot who (formerly) maintained it won't be listing anything in New Haven if it's listed any time after 2009 or so. That means both of you should be thankful. As far as statistics go, a proper article about a police department should list how many Tasers they own, as well as how many useless college protesters were beaten by riot control officers. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I can find such data, I will happily incorporate it into the article! :-D Markvs88 (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nicely put, Elkman! Absolutely that would make it more interesting. :) No, i don't have any axe to grind w.r.t. UNH police, I haven't been busted and have not had any other contact with them. I visited this article in response to your own calls to address merger/split requests at WP:Connecticut, and was/am actually trying to support your effort with that. Sorry about a lapse in responding in the previous merger discussion; there's a lot on my watchlist and i don't get around to everything. A note to my Talk page would usually get me (but maybe you tried that?) Given your pointing me to other police department articles, i did eventually accept your view that the topic is notable, but the mentions that they have a stupid bicycle, etc., do grate. I thot i'd accept the separate article, but improve it by removing that. Again, why do you want to keep the equipment tally information? Do you know that it is current? Do you expect us to post updates frequently? It just seems inappropriate. Most articles about fire departments might mention their firetrucks, but not necessarily tally them, and to mention cars is no more interesting than mentioning desks. Please do comment more. --doncram (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly understand what it's like being busy, I too have multiple irons in the fire. But I'd like you to please note that I've never, ever opposed another Wikipedian from adding to an article with citable material. That's against the very crux of what this place is for. I put a note on your talk page when you tried to put this article back up for merging after I accepted the historic district non-merge. It went unanswered, and given the talk was unanswered, I'm sure you understand I didn't know what else to think. As for grating: it's (as you said in that historic district talk page) a work in progress. :-) Hey, it may seem inappropriate to you but not to others, likewise how the Kaatz Icehouse (which I saw razed as a child) was being listed as still existing due to a NRHP source... 32 years out of date. My point here is that questioning some sources and not others is disingenuous: if I couldn't do it on Housatonic River Railroad Bridge, Pequonnock River Railroad Bridge, etc WITH contrary sources, then you can't reasonably expect to do it here on principles. Basically, any article needs to be improved by adding (valid) content. What this police force uses is as important to it as the architect or materials are to a historic home in terms of detail. We have too many stubs in the CT Wikiproject as it is. Markvs88 (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, at least we're talking. I appreciate you're not aggressively removing sourced material. It is unusual for me also to be involved in trying to remove sourced material; i do often remove unsourced material that gets added to CT articles too frequently, though. But not all material is relevant. Sourcing is required, yes, but not sufficient to justify using material. We have to have some standards, don't you think? Whether "we have too many stubs" or not, doesn't really matter. (About the Katz Icehouse, can you please followup at wp:NRIS info issues CT's section "Demolished but still listed", where i opened an item for it? I and others are seeking to collect and report NRHP errors for correction using that info collection system.) --doncram (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Doncram, I will always parley and I don't take things personally... it's an online encyclopedia after all. Of course I agree we have to have standards... and I'm following what other police articles have. This particular article is not of primary importance to me, but it IS to the CT project and law articles in the CT project are usually woeful so I just kind of picked this one up. It actually does matter to me: having a project full of stubs is close to pointless... I think you'll agree that better articles are better. This again goes to your point on the historic district talk: as works in progress we should only remove wholly unencyclopedic & uncited content. Since many other (highly rated) police articles have an equipment section, it should remain. Sure, I can do that for the Icehouse... it being local to me I know a bit about it. Markvs88 (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, at least we're talking. I appreciate you're not aggressively removing sourced material. It is unusual for me also to be involved in trying to remove sourced material; i do often remove unsourced material that gets added to CT articles too frequently, though. But not all material is relevant. Sourcing is required, yes, but not sufficient to justify using material. We have to have some standards, don't you think? Whether "we have too many stubs" or not, doesn't really matter. (About the Katz Icehouse, can you please followup at wp:NRIS info issues CT's section "Demolished but still listed", where i opened an item for it? I and others are seeking to collect and report NRHP errors for correction using that info collection system.) --doncram (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly understand what it's like being busy, I too have multiple irons in the fire. But I'd like you to please note that I've never, ever opposed another Wikipedian from adding to an article with citable material. That's against the very crux of what this place is for. I put a note on your talk page when you tried to put this article back up for merging after I accepted the historic district non-merge. It went unanswered, and given the talk was unanswered, I'm sure you understand I didn't know what else to think. As for grating: it's (as you said in that historic district talk page) a work in progress. :-) Hey, it may seem inappropriate to you but not to others, likewise how the Kaatz Icehouse (which I saw razed as a child) was being listed as still existing due to a NRHP source... 32 years out of date. My point here is that questioning some sources and not others is disingenuous: if I couldn't do it on Housatonic River Railroad Bridge, Pequonnock River Railroad Bridge, etc WITH contrary sources, then you can't reasonably expect to do it here on principles. Basically, any article needs to be improved by adding (valid) content. What this police force uses is as important to it as the architect or materials are to a historic home in terms of detail. We have too many stubs in the CT Wikiproject as it is. Markvs88 (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nicely put, Elkman! Absolutely that would make it more interesting. :) No, i don't have any axe to grind w.r.t. UNH police, I haven't been busted and have not had any other contact with them. I visited this article in response to your own calls to address merger/split requests at WP:Connecticut, and was/am actually trying to support your effort with that. Sorry about a lapse in responding in the previous merger discussion; there's a lot on my watchlist and i don't get around to everything. A note to my Talk page would usually get me (but maybe you tried that?) Given your pointing me to other police department articles, i did eventually accept your view that the topic is notable, but the mentions that they have a stupid bicycle, etc., do grate. I thot i'd accept the separate article, but improve it by removing that. Again, why do you want to keep the equipment tally information? Do you know that it is current? Do you expect us to post updates frequently? It just seems inappropriate. Most articles about fire departments might mention their firetrucks, but not necessarily tally them, and to mention cars is no more interesting than mentioning desks. Please do comment more. --doncram (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I can find such data, I will happily incorporate it into the article! :-D Markvs88 (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- As far as National Register listings go, at least the shitty infobox generator and the idiot who (formerly) maintained it won't be listing anything in New Haven if it's listed any time after 2009 or so. That means both of you should be thankful. As far as statistics go, a proper article about a police department should list how many Tasers they own, as well as how many useless college protesters were beaten by riot control officers. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, I am not a police officer, and I have no connection to West Haven/UNH whatsoever. Nor (for the record) do I have any real relationship for the Washington Bridge or any other article I have not seen eye-to-eye with you on. Back at you: were you ever busted by the UNH Police Department? I am, however, tired of you dropping talk discussions (you haven not replied to our discussion about this for over 2 weeks: Talk:University of New Haven) and then make the changes you want anyway. BTW, what you consider cool is decidedly UNencyclopedic and given your penchant for creating stubs I'm shocked you even care about someone adding citable content. I mean, you should really be backing me as they'll be added to the NHRP in 2030 or so, (with a typo saying they're in North Haven, but whatever). Markvs88 (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)