Talk:Austin Police Department

message: An editor wishes to add the following link to this and other articles:
:"VOICES From The Tower"
I have asked them if we can have a centralized discussion about this link, rather than have the discussion across mutliple pages, and they have agreed to have the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Texas#Centralized_discussion_on_UT_Tower_shooting_link.  Please visit that discussion if you wish to participate.  Thanks, Johntex\talk 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Centralized discussion on UT Tower shooting link

message: I don't have a conflict but I needed to get attention to this page. At the moment 90% of it is a screed about misconduct. Where is the balance? Someone please take a look at it.--ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have time to try to fix it, but I completely concur.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance/NPOV??? 

message: It's pretty obvious to anybody who looks at the edit history of this article that it's been ravaged by edit wars for a while. Now that both of the offending parties have been blocked, I was wondering what should be done about the current state of the article. It's pretty clear there was some heavy POV pushing, and I don't think it's fine to leave the article as it is. Is there a version we can agree to revert to? Pishcal (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: even in the version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austin_Police_Department&oldid=622280811 from before the most recent POV pushing, there is nothing encyclopedic to restore. This seems to be a case of just start fresh. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have applied a stub tag to the article, concurring that it should be started over.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

text: An old version of the article contained information on specialized units.  Should it be re-inserted?  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I have restored useful information that was in a much older version prior to the edit wars.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version to revert to 

message: These seem to mention items from APD that have received notice of the level that would suggest inclusion in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: potential sources for rebuild

message: This article seems to be lacking any sort of history section. i.e. The creation of APD or any other additional history relevant to the organization.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlbarl13 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, if you check the article history you'll notice it was subject to some pretty heavy edit warring, and the article was left pretty bare bones after it was reverted. TRPoD posted some links right above that should be helpful if you're looking to expand the article. Pishcal — ♣ 15:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation 

message: I would like a consensus on the list of fallen officers. I believe they are worthy to be included in the article and is encyclopedic  ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good morning. I certainly understand. How we say such people are not notable. On the other hand, on many other pages such lists are belong removed. There are two reasons as I understand them. First off, the Office Down Memorial Page does a great job on this subject and there is no obvious reason to copy their efforts. Next, such a list tends to dominate are article. I would counter that it is a thumbnail of the department's history. Let us keep this one, but demote "chief of police" in accordance with the standard rules of grammar. --Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the names of the fallen officers. Their names are in the source provided in the section (i.e. the department's web page, which is a more appropriate place). ... discospinster talk 21:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Discospinster, whose opinion I sought on this and the controversial deaths section. The latter was added by a single WP:SPA account, and appears WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:NOTNEWS. The content can be converted to prose form, with one to two sentences describing each incident. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As with the fallen officers, the names of the deceased and the officers involved are most likely non notable by encyclopedia standards. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of fallen officers ~ consensus needed