Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traffic police (disambiguation)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Traffic police (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Not needed dab per WP:TWODABS. Has 1 valid entry = the primary topic - see the WP:DABCONCEPT (DC) Traffic police - all those other entries are examples of the primary topic so are not included in a dab per WP:DABCONCEPT / WP:MOSDAB "Where there are additional meanings that are not instances or examples of a "Foo" primary concept or type, those should be included on a "Foo (disambiguation)" page." (emphasis own)
 * This is a recreation & duplicate of the DC at Traffic police, so a valid (but contested) CSD. Listing at AfD for more scrutiny (and in respect to Rich's well-formed edit muscles) Widefox ; talk 11:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (See also Traffic policing. A similar and related dab. Even combining both dabs doesn't give more than a 1 primary and 1 other topic) Widefox ; talk 11:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep this as a dab page if Traffic police is to be an article. If traffic police is to be a disambiguation page, then redirect there  (keeping any improvements).
 * The page was previously a redirect to Traffic police.  The redirect was speedied on the basis that Traffic police isn't a dab page.  This (dab page) is being proposed for speedy on the basis that Traffic police is a dab page.  Both statements can't be correct at the same time.
 * Not all the entries are examples, and none are mere examples. They would all be known as "traffic police" or "the Traffic Police".
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC).


 * Unless someone has a good reason not to, the upper and lowercase Traffic police Traffic Police should have the same target i.e. the DC Traffic police. My speedy was that it's a duplication of an existing article (a DC) in a previous form (e.g. inheriting the style issue on the BBC entry etc), as well as being a dab with arguably only duplicate entries from the primary topic (per WP:BROADCONCEPT, so leaving a dab with 1 valid entry failing WP:TWODABS. Widefox ; talk 11:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - Traffic Police was originally a R from other cap and recently changed without justification. Now it's back to targetting the DC. Widefox ; talk 12:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Traffic police is an article (per above). This AfD isn't about that article which should be decided there. Widefox ; talk 13:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: WP:DABCONCEPT is a guideline, and may not reflect actual practice, where many broad concept articles are accompanied by DAB pages. Even the examples listed have DAB pages, notably Particle (disambiguation), National Trust (disambiguation) and Football (disambiguation).  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC).


 * (offtopic caveat) Well, if it doesn't we should bring it in-line Rich. I picked what I thought was the easiest one National Trust (disambiguation). It needed cleaning up a bit, and the National Trust stub/start is wavering between/a combo of SIA, broadconcept, dab and list. Hmm, I've plumped for broadconcept and fixed too. Widefox ; talk 10:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The DC National Trust is at the wrong capitalisation, so requested a swap of the DC and the redirect. The dab and hatnotes are already ready for the move. Widefox ; talk 10:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Now the dust has settled on National Trust (disambiguation), the DC examples aren't included in the dab. That dab example is exactly what I'm proposing here, and in line with WP:DABCONCEPT, so may be a bad example for that point (which at the heart may be the issue of WP:RELATED?). Widefox ; talk 10:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The primary topic and traffic officer are the only legitimate dab entries I see. The rest can be, and in many cases, have already been merged into Traffic police. Also redirect Traffic Police there. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarityfiend traffic officer is a redir to Traffic police so not even a valid entry. Widefox ; talk 10:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Traffic officer was a disambiguation page that was moved to Traffic officer (disambiguation) and deleted, after the redirect was re-targeted to Traffic police. I have asked for a WP:REFUND of Traffic officer (disambiguation) to find out what is going on.  (This is the sort of investigation I would prefer to do in advance of a deletion request.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC).


 * The refund has been done, as can be seen from the above blue link. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC).


 * It's not that they have been merged into Traffic police, it's that Traffic police is a dab page trying to become an article. If it becomes an article most of the uses will be hard to find, and this dab page will be needed.  Otherwise (if it reverts to a dab page)this needs to be a redirect.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC).


 * The current state of Traffic police is a WP:DABCONCEPT, which appears to me the best right now and unless there's a new better arrangement proposed, for the future too. (Of course, discussion of the primary topic should go there not here). Widefox ; talk 15:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Traffic officer (disambiguation) is similar - there's a primary topic that includes these links. The navigation theory being that readers go to the PT first, and then they'd never need the dab as they're all in the PT. Widefox ; talk 08:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment there may be a tiny bit of merit in having at least Traffic Cops in a dab (or preferably a hatnote), per the grey area of WP:RELATED. A hatnote may be better though. Widefox ; talk 11:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Further comment. It seems to me that there are three four broad concepts relating to traditional policing, and additional ones relating to communications.
 * Traffic officers, people who are not police but who police traffic
 * Note that "Traffic officer" has a specific legal meaning in the legislation of the UK see this version - which has been lost by the merging and dabbing and redirecting. It also should be developed to cover other groups and the role that a traffic officer has, and be broadened to cover other jurisdictions if appropriate (notably Canada).
 * Traffic police, police employees, including police officers, who police traffic
 * Traffic policing, the art and science of policing traffic.
 * Traffic Police - the name of a department concerned with policing traffic e.g. Traffic Police (Sri Lanka)
 * Typically they will employ traffic police, including police officers, as well as other people who work for the Traffic Police but who are neither police nor police traffic.
 * Of course there is also the traffic policing (communications)
 * In addition there are related concepts concerning trafficking (guns, drugs, people) which we have not yet covered in WP.
 * There may be other meanings that are relevant too.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC).


 * At least one WP:DABCONCEPT is the right consolidation here - we have many synonyms and proper nouns with different national arrangements. Agree some dabconcepts rather than creating a set of nav dabs just sends readers round the houses IMHO. WP:RELATED is to be considered. I haven't looked at the overall picture thoroughly. Widefox ; talk 15:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * We need to be careful not to build imprecise hodge-podges and call them disambiguation pages. The phrase "Traffic police" is never used, so far as I can tell to refer to "traffic policing" in communications. I know of no police department responsible for addressing "trafficking" that is known as "traffic police". It seems misleading to suggest otherwise. If we step away from title matches, then we are stepping away from the kind of ambiguity that requires a navigational page. bd2412  T 21:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. Duplicating entries from several primary topic dabconcepts in a set of dabs may not be helpful, but suggest something like creating a list article with all these related orgs/roles. Widefox ; talk 15:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Have to request an overall plan for the proposed arrangement above (four DCs and presumably hatnotes/dabs) Rich, before we just delete these recreated dabs that all need cleanup too. Widefox ; talk 08:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We have apparatus for doing this. I would suggest:
 * Traffic police an article about traffic police - that is
 * the people who either
 * Work for the Traffic Police or
 * are police who deal largely or exclusively with traffic
 * closely related matter
 * purpose of job
 * broadly what they do
 * how it varies from country to country
 * the authority they act under, who they are employed by etc.
 * Traffic officer a short page (don't care if you call it dab, set index or dabconcept)
 * explaining what a traffic officer is in the UK, Canada, other countries if known.
 * Linking to the various detailed articles where they exist.
 * Hat note to Traffic police
 * Traffic officer (disambiguation) move back to Traffic officer over redirect, without leaving a redirect (unless Traffic officer is going to be a dab or SIA page), for attribution purposes.
 * Traffic police (disambiguation) clean up, extend list of entities called Traffic Police, if it's long enough move to List of traffic police departments or similar.
 * Hat note/see also to traffic policing
 * Traffic Police redirect to wherever the comprehensive list of Traffic Police Departments is going to be.
 * Traffic policing either keep as dab page, or move Traffic policing (communications) here and use a hat note.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC).


 * [Traffic police]...  But that is beside the point. RF 13:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How is a traffic officer any different than an individual instance of traffic police? How is the current setup of Traffic officer (disambiguation) any different than a limited fork of traffic police? The content of the dab should be merged into Traffic police and the dab itself deleted. bd2412  T 15:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole point is that traffic officers are not traffic police! For example they cannot stop you for speeding.  You can hodge-podge them into the traffic police "article" if you wish.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC).


 * My initial reaction is: this proposal strikes me as a wikt vs WP issue (and navigation per WP:RELATED). We are meant to de-emphasise regional/national proper nouns and create articles with international scope. We can arrange titles and navigation giving higher priority to the proper nouns but that is at the expense of easy arrangement/nav. I'm quite happy that the direction of the current arrangement of converting dabs to broadconcepts is useful and guideline/policy based. I could easily be wrong, would need to double check this proposal. (two minor points Rich 1. the EXT link uses the image and title of roadside law enforcement only for illustration (rather than as a serious term), 2. in the proposal Traffic officer is too much emphasis on UK/Canada without much global scope in the grand picture here, a hatnote at the Traffic officer target site per WP:RELATED would be better) Widefox ; talk 10:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Traffic officer" redirects here. For the related concept "traffic officer" see Highways Agency Traffic Officers, England, Welsh Government Traffic Officers, Dartford Crossing Traffic Officers, South Wales Trunk Road Agent, Traffic Officer Western Cape, Bylaw enforcement officer (Australia), Saskatchewan Traffic Officer, Traffic agent (Spain) see also trasportation officer...
 * I think the key point is that some of these concepts don't belong in a broad-concept "Traffic police" article, and shoehorning them in, because they were in the previous dab page that it replaces is a bad idea.
 * The broad-concept article can serve eliminate the requirement for disambiguation if it covers all the concepts that could sit at the disambiguation page. The current traffic police article only does this because of the section "examples of traffic police departments", "Traffic officers who are not sworn police officers" and "see also".  The first is not complete, the second does not belong on the page (unless you want to move it to traffic officer) and the third is rather odd, and not what a mature article would have.  The link to Traffic Cops (documentary) clearly does not belong there, while it might be allowable on a dab page.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC).


 * The primary topic here is still people who are employed by some branch of government to regulate road traffic, with some measure of authority to do this. Policing, more generally, is equally diverse. There are small towns with a single law enforcement officer, and there are major cities with a large police force containing many levels and divisions. There are countries where the police have a military level of authority. We don't treat these as ambiguous concepts, but as variations in the range of discussing a single broad concept. bd2412  T 23:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 06:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't a valid topic for a disambiguation page, since everything in it is about one thing, already covered in the article Traffic police, from where links should go to local traffic police departments having articles of their own. Snowsuit Wearer (talk&#124;contribs) 18:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.