Talk:Protection Command
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Protection Command article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Codenames edit
Do Protection Command protectees have code names, like U.S. Secret Service protectees? 74.69.11.229 (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
In the media section edit
That section seems to have some POV issues. Every single entry is a negative and most are fairly trivial. Just because something gets mentioned in the media doesn't make it notable enough to include. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Merger proposal edit
I wonder if we should merge Personal Protection Officer into this page. Personal Protection Officer recently survived a mass AFD however it wasn't individually scrutinised, and even after doing some work to improve the page, I'm not convinced there is sufficient reason to keep the two separate. Both pages are relatively short, both include similar content and rely on similar sources, and there is relatively little coverage of PPOs completely distinct from mention of Protection Command. In addition, treating Personal Protection Officer as an entirely separate term is somewhat ambiguous since the Met Police are by no means the only force in the world or even the UK to use it. @Sam Sailor, Sandstein, Andrew Davidson, Dream Focus, Choess, Bowchaser, and Rob984:Hugsyrup (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose As the term is used by other forces, we should not make it exclusive to this particular one. The Protection Command is a comparatively recent creation (2015) and there may be further bureaucratic reorganisations. There seems to be no benefit in pushing the topic around. Andrew D. (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Definitely see your point on that. I think the issue I have is that the PPO page seems to fit a very narrow gap between Bodyguard and Protection Command and there's just no value in that, as the PPO term itself simply isn't very notable - effectively it's synonymous with 'British Police Bodyguard', which is unnecessarily specific. Perhaps the PPO term should redirect to Bodyguard while the current Met-specific content should move to Protection Command. Would that make any difference to your opinion? Hugsyrup (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose PPO as already mentioned is a generic term used by many police forces and, incidently the millitary. This article is specifically about the Met's Protection Command. A chunk of the work conducted by Protection Command is PPO type stuff but it does other things too. Although other forces do have PPOs (much smaller numbers) this article is specifically about a fairly unique Command in UK policing which is responsible for conducting many of the unique national responsibilities that the Met have compared to every other police force. Merging will confuse the issue. I think it might be better to re-write the PPO article to be more generic of the role and not Met specific - however for info the overwhelming number of PPOs in the UK are Met due to its national responsibilities. Bowchaser (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)