Talk:Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Cleanup
PMJ, please state what you believe needs cleaning up about this article. ninety:one 16:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Its not just cleanup.


 * I think that the lead should be more informative, such as the edits that I introduced. Which was

"Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is currently the third highest rank, within Londons Metropolitan Police Service. The rank is commonly referred to, simply as just Assistant Commissioner. The rank of AC is senior to Deputy Assistant Commissioner, but junior to Deputy Commissioner."

Which personally I see no problem with, because it gives information of what it is, being a third highest rank, within the London MPS. I mean you can see for yourself, please state what you have against my edits, if anyone does.


 * The change from "Metropolitan Police Area" to "Metropolitan Police District".


 * And the bolding off the list of all the different ACs, because at the moment it makes the list of section headers make a too bigger list. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 17:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus does anyone have a valid reason to reject these edits? If not, please let them go on the article. Last time I tried ti implement these changes, all my edits were reverted, because the user did not agree with one thing. Which is not in tone with good faith, because if you do not agree with one change, change it. Just dont undo peoples hard work. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 17:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If your edits are reverted by someone, you do what you have just done and disscuss it on the talk page. You do not add maintenance tags like cleanup. I have made some changes, however I cannot find the phrase "Metropolitan Police Area" anywhere. I also added a TOC limiter after re-organising the whole list. ninety:one 18:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 18:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, can I say that I did not revert PMJ's edits because I "did not agree with one thing". I reverted them because his main edit was to delink anything that had a red link, completely against Wikipedia guidelines, and by delinking them he undid more of my "hard work" than I did his by reverting these changes (since the list of redlinked Assistant Commissioners allows me to see which need to be created - I have already created articles for a large percentage of these gentlemen). In no way was this bad faith and I resent the accusation that it was. I would also point out that PMJ's suggestion for a new lead section shows a weird use of punctuation and provides no more info than the previous lead and that, contrary to his claim, I kept his accurate change from "Metropolitan Police area" to "Metropolitan Police District", his only edit which I considered contributed positively to the article. Nowhere does it say that edits which lessen an article's usability should be allowed to stand simply because they have been made. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article could be considerably cleaned up by separating out, or at least listing, current ACs and previous ones. I'd make a start but I've not seen a post-Blair list, and don't have time to find one. Wnjr (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Highlight the differences between AC for Specialist Operations and AC for Specialist Crime and Operations
I'm looking for advice on how to draw attention to the fact that Specialist Operations and Specialist Crime and Operations are not the same. A great number of wiki editors/authors seem to have difficulty in correctly distinguishing the two; due no doubt to the similar name and not helped buy the fact that Cressida Dick held both positions in a short space of time, including the changeover from Specialist Crimes to Specialist Crime and Operations. On top of that Mark Rowley, who took over from Dick as AC for SO, was replaced in his previous job in Surrey Police by the previous holder of the AC for Specialist Crimes (Lynne Owens), who had just been replaced by Dick.

Basically I am currently correcting these errors where I find them, but I am wondering if its worth creating a stand-alone article or a section in a relevant article highlighting the difference, so as to minimise future confusion. Feedback appreciated, I'm new to this.

ReaverMan (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: I have started writing an article detailing this section as the more I look the more errors I find related to the topic. The contradictions and confusion seems to have seeped through every wiki page relating to the subject. ReaverMan (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup required for the final section, "Assistant Commissioners since 1985"
This section is unclear, messy, and generally needs to be redone - it covers a very broad time span, doesn't clearly differentiate between the current holders and the historical holders and lacks organisation.

I propose making a new section which will list the current positions and their incumbents; and reorganizing the existing section so that the positions are either
 * listed in chronological order where those that are still continuing are at the bottom and the ones which were discontinued first are at the top;
 * use every year that a change occurred to the positions as a separate section, and within each of those sections list all of the active positions and the people that held those positions.
 * or so that they are listed so that related positions are adjacent e.g. Special Crimes Directorate would be next to Special Crimes and Operations.

Unless there are any other ideas I will proceed to rewrite it within a few days, once I am certain I have a definitive list of the holders of each position since 1985. I will probably use the second of my three above suggestions as I feel it would give greater clarity (although I haven't really explained the idea very well).

ReaverMan (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The list is already as definitive as my research in Who's Who could make it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case I'll draft out my re-arrangement idea as soon as I've finished the article I'm currently writing, and in the unlikely event I do discover anything different to whats already written I can add it in later. At the very least this page could do with a separate section for the current holders rather than lumping them in with the 1985-onwards category, which is what i will do first. ReaverMan (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Dates
The list states Labalmondière's term as Assistant Commissioner "A" ended in 1884 and Bruce took office in that year, but their article pages indicate this happened in 1888. Does anyone know a source which would show which is correct? Dunarc (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)