Talk:National databases of United States persons

Notability

This article should be deleted per WP:LISTN. The grouping seems extremely nebulous and I doubt if there are any reliable sources supporting it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:SALAT is also relevant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A list like this could be interesting, but only if was complete. Personally I'd like to also some historical content. The "these are the currently available big databases" nature of the article makes it seem "alarmist". Lastly, I'm not sure what purpose the "private" section provides, just the idea of it seems more promotional that informative. My 2 cents... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A list doesn't satisfy WP:N by virtue of it being interesting. If someone finds it interesting they can put it in their blog. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this page should be converted into a category, as the inclusion criteria appear to pass the "definingness" test but not the notability test. See WP:CAT and WP:DEFINING. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the notability template that was added to the article last July. I just don't see a notability issue here. Such a list is important to discussions of privacy, data retention, censorship, surveillance, freedom of expression and of information. It is part and parcel of discussions of "big data". Similar lists exist for other countries in the Government databases article and when a country's sub-section gets too long there it can and should be split out into country specific articles of its own. This isn't to say that we shouldn't work to improve the article, we should. We should expand it and make it more complete. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

"Important" doesn't mean "notable." Please explain why it should stay per WP:LISTN and WP:SALAT. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Common name column

Here's another suggestion, how about a "common name" column. For example, i'm more familiar with term CODIS than Combined DNA Index System. Plus is the NCIC listed? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever is most recognizable would seem the most suited for the entry. What that may be is, of course, inherently debatable, as already evidenced in WP:NC discussions. I'd probably default to the article title. Maybe include the abbreviation after that. As to the NCIC or any other that's suited, put it in. ENeville (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree on the naming of each entry, but if it has a "common name" or recognizable acronym (like CODIS for example) its makes sense to use it. Plus for the sake of the list/article, its more likely going to be linked to by other articles if you make it easier for other editors and readers to find it. There is a practicality to my suggestion. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to contradict your point. Sure there's a practicality. What I was saying is, in a manner of perhaps kicking the can down the road a bit, that there may fundamentally be no easy answer, but that maybe we can draw on available conventions. NCIC, for example, redirects to National Crime Information Center. Maybe the program name should list the full name first and then the abbreviation, e.g. "National Crime Information Center (NCIC)"? except in cases analogous to NASA, which is at NASA, in which case the abbreviation should come first, followed by the full name? Or maybe an additional column should exist for abbreviations? I think the main entry point for the information as a whole is the type of information collected, and in terms of a progression of learning we don't want to assume a reader's familiarity with the programs involved, and therefore we should use unabbreviated program names first. But broadly, to state a given, the article is not in finished form. ENeville (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, not assuming a reader's familiarity is a great stance to take. I wasn't advocating any particular order or preference for names. Admittedly I looked at the list and pondered that myself and had no epiphany. That said, I agree with your choice of lead column being the data type.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National databases of United States persons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021202550/https://bulk.resource.org/irs.gov/eo/doc/irs.gov.20130707.html to https://bulk.resource.org/irs.gov/eo/doc/irs.gov.20130707.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)