Talk:law enforcement agency

RFD
Law enforcement +. Am I missing something? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, unless there is some unusual value for translations or something. No different in construction than "food safety agency" or "tax collection agency". bd2412 T 15:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would 100% keep law enforcement as it's more than the enforcement of the law. It doesn't normally refer to judges making rulings on civil matters, for example, it's mostly policing. Not used much in the UK, I would tend to gloss as US and Canada. Perhaps others, I don't know about NZ, AUS, India, etc. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick! There are no translations yet. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as a translation target; thanks for the tip, Hekaheka. Law enforcement agency has some interwiki that shows translations that do not appear to be word-for-word translations: German Strafverfolgungsbehörde (Straf-verfolgung-s-behörde), Czech policejní orgán, Polish organy ścigania, etc. Furthermore, WP says it is a term of "North American English" (U.S. and Canadina?); is it true? If so, this is lexicographical info that adds to the value of the entry as a lexicographical one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Interwikis aren't necessarily translations, sometimes they're similar concepts which are 'close enough' to merit an interwiki. I'd argue back but since we all know that WT:CFI isn't binding, you're entitled to vote keep for any reason you like. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The assumption that, without CFI, there would be nothing to argue about seems strange to me. The unstated assumption is that we want to built a good multilingual dictionary. The good then gets broken down into multiple further requirements, such as accurate, complete, succinct, detailed, clear, verifiable, and the like. Some of these requirements clash. Even without CFI, they are there by implication. The current CFI is a particular operationalization of some of these requirements. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Who's making that assumption, just you? It's not my assumption to be clear. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not clear (to me) what your vote really is. Undecided for now. Russian fits more "law enforcement agency", though, not "law enforcement". probably the same with the Czech policejní orgán. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep idiomatic set phrase. Ƿidsiþ 08:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd ask you to justify that opinion, but I know you don't do that. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd ask you not to be so passive-aggressive, but I guess that's a bit pointless too? It's idiomatic because this is the natural way to say it in English and that cannot be predicted. No one refers to the post office as a ‘delivery enforcement agency’. Also, institutions like corporate tribunals, peacekeeping forces etc. are agencies that enforce the law, but they are not what we mean when we talk about law enforcement agencies. Ƿidsiþ 08:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All of that is covered by law enforcement rather than law enforcement agency. Law enforcement agency is just law enforcement immediately followed by the word agency. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 22:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 02:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)