Talk:Police box

assessment
Needs references, otherwise a neat article, scraping into B for the images and for making alot out of the topic.--SGGH 16:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed reference to BBC copyright. I don't see how you can copyright a shape.

Roadrunner 06:16, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * In the UK, you can register a design under the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988. The TARDIS and the Police Box design are registered trademarks of the BBC. See http://dwas.drwho.org/news/20021023-tardis - I've corrected the article accordingly. --khaosworks 08:08, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph that begins "In Britain, police call boxes first began appearing in the 1880s" is very confused. It switches from talking about Britain to the US, describes a telephone on a pole and then says what is 'inside' it (including a table). It might be an idea if someone who know what was meant rearranged the paragraph. DJ Clayworth 15:07, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are still several police boxes left in Edinburgh (I only know this because I live there). They are mainly left untouched, with a few being converted into coffee bars (High Street and Rose Street are two examples). There's a very informative website, kiosk-korner.co.uk, that's worth a look.

New Kiosks
These are for the public to contact the police as opposed to the police using them for information, right? Jachra 05:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

G. Mackenzie Trench
This legal brief concerning the BBC vs. Metropolitan Police lawsuit refers to the designer of the blue London police box as "Gilbert MacKenzie Trench". This academic paper on the history of police boxes calls him "George McKenzie Trench". This site calls him "G. Mackenzie-Trench", and this one says "G McKenzie-Trench". Does anyone know what the man's name actually was? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Times always refers to him as "Mr G. Mackenzie Trench" in several articles published between 1929 and 1936 &mdash; reports of a murder in 1964 at a police building named after him refer to "Mackenzie Trench House", so it seems there's an 'a' and no hyphen, according to The Times anyway. That doesn't help you with the first name much admittedly. Angmering 07:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah — the Dictionary of Scottish Architects lists him as Gilbert Mackenzie Trench, so it looks like the University of Strathclyde lecturer got it wrong. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"bristling with new technology"
The caption for the Earl's Court police box image says that it's "bristling with new technology". It looks as if it's a quote, but I can't figure out where it's from. Is it from some press release or newspaper story from when it was built in 1997? Does anyone know? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

GA failing
This is still a little way from GA, the main stickler here is sourcing, it's written fairly well and useful ect. ect., but the whole lead is unsourced and there are numerous paragraphs with no refs at all. Work on sourcing before you send it back for a second go

†he Bread 3000  08:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that the lead section was meant to be a summary of the article, with citations provided in the main article text. The fact that information was cited in the lead section was a complaint in this featured article review, where the reviewer said, "The lead section is meant to be a summary of the article. All info there should also be in the body of the article and inline cited there, not in the lead section."  Is that inaccurate?  If so, it would be good if you could correct the reviewer, so that he stops giving misleading criticisms. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. After a bit of research, I see that this was a subject of debate at Lead section a few months back; based on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Lead section, the consensus seems to be that lead sections should be cited just like the rest of the article. I stand corrected. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there - this is something I've also wondered about for a little while - would you easily be able to provide a link to the discussion? Cheers SeanMack 11:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It starts here and continues in the following sections. The discussion isn't definitive, but to my eye it leans towards citations in the lead section. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

About the GA nomination — I've added more citations, and re-submitted the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

GA review by Johntex
I am reviewing the article for GA and placing comments here as I go along. Please feel free to address any of these as I go. Johntex\talk 15:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC) For these reasons, I am going to fail the article for now. I do this without prejudice to you resubmitting when you think you are ready. It is a very useful article as it stands, just not quite up to GA standards in my opinion. Please keep up the good work. Johntex\talk 15:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "This was in the day..." - that phrase does not seem very encyclopedic to me. What era are we talking about here?  1920s?  1820s?  1400s?
 * 2) I don't think the article takes a world-wide view. The Lead mentions British police boxes but no police boxes outside of the UK.  If they are limited to the UK the article should say so.  Reading further, I see that the first police boxes were in the US, but most of the history is about the UK boxes.  What happened to the US boxes - when did they disappear?  Were they blue? If they are found in other countries (commonwealth countries perhaps?) then it should say so, otherwise it should say they were restricted to the UK and US.
 * 3) "Today the image of the blue police box is widely associated with the science fiction television programme Doctor Who, in which the protagonist's time machine, the TARDIS, is stuck in the shape of a police box." - I'm concerned this is not directly supported by the reference. The reference is specific to one judge's ruling in one trademark case.  The judge seems to be saying that the TARDIS usage is more familar to modern people than the police use, but that does not mean that either are "widely associated" in the public mind.
 * 4) Since TARDIS is linked in the article, no need to also link it in see also
 * 5) "The first police telephone was installed in Albany, New York in 1877, one year after Alexander Graham Bell invented the device." That makes it sound like he invented the police telephone - did he?  Or did he just invent the telephone.
 * 6) "the Met" - should introduce this abbreviation at first mention
 * 7) There are still unsourced blocks of text, including
 * 8) "However, at present, only the Great Western Road and Buchanan St boxes have been transformed to dispense beverages, and restrictions are enforced by the Civil Defence & Emergency Service Preservation Trust to prevent the exterior of the boxes from being modified beyond the trademarked design. The Civil Defence & Emergency Service Preservation Trust now manage 11 of the UK's last "Gilbert Mackenzie Trench" Police Signal Boxes on behalf of a private collector."
 * 9) "The telephone ceased to function in April 2000 when London's telephone numbers were changed, but the box remained despite the fact that funding for its upkeep and maintenance had long since dried up. In March 2005, the Metropolitan Police resumed funding the refurbishment and maintenance of the box."
 * 10) Optional - a photo of Glasgow's new chrome design "police box" inttroduced in 2005 would be splendid.
 * 11) "...restrictions are enforced by the Civil Defence & Emergency Service Preservation Trust to prevent the exterior of the boxes from being modified beyond the trademarked design." Further down, it says the police never took out a trademark.  Is the Civil Defence & Emergency Service Preservation Trust actually enforcing the BBC trademark?
 * 12) In general, I'm concerned that the article may be too short to give good coverage of this topic. They are so publically visible I suspect much more has been said about them.  For instance, the article does not say anything about their effectiveness.  The article talks about funds for upkeep, but never mentions how much has been or is being spent.  As noted above, there is no mention of police boxes outside of the UK and US.

Caption for image of Earl's Court box
A while back, 90.240.102.48 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) added "1950s style" to the caption of the image of the Earl's Court police box. I removed it, because I thought that it was misleading, since the box isn't exactly 1950s style (most notably because of the CCTV camera on the top). As you can see in the page history and on our respective user talk pages, we've had a little disagreement about it. It's a pretty minor point, but we should try to reach a solution that's acceptable to everybody. (If anyone else reading this is interested, please chime in — other opinions are welcome.)

I felt that "1950s style" was misleading because of the CCTV. (I'm also not clear on how the design is more 1950s than it is 1940s or 1930s — it's basically the Mackenzie Trench design, with a few alterations.) 90.x feels that "modern" alone is misleading. How would it be if we changed the caption to something completely neutral, such as "A police box outside Earl's Court tube station in London." The article contains details of the construction and maintainance of that box, and I've been dubious of the "bristling with new technology" bit for a while now (see above). Would a simpler caption be an acceptable compromise? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd go with the simpler one &mdash; "1950s style" is certainly misleading and shouldn't be used for that particular image, anyway. Angmering 11:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunt understand. No-one makes police boxes anymore, so you have to say what style it's been constructed in otherwise the implication would be that it is in a modern style. I got '1950s' from somewhere else in the article, and from what I can garner from pages referenced in the article it's probably incorrect - it could range anywhere from 1930s to 1960s - but there should still be some contextual comment on the style. --90.240.102.48 14:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about "A police box outside Earl's Court tube station in London, built in 1997 and based on the 1929 Mackenzie Trench design"? That indicates that the design isn't really modern, although the box is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. --90.240.102.48 20:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. This gets rid of the problematic "bristling with new technology" bit as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (I'm not entirely comfortable with it, as obviously I'm of the opinion that the box is a novelty built by the Met on a whim, and you are of the opinion it is a real police box built with the intention of functioning as such, and your suggestion's tone reflects that - but it'll do.) --90.240.102.48 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have no opinion about the Met's intentions in building that police box in 1997, and I'm not quite sure how the caption's tone suggests anything about their intentions. But it's not a big deal. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The page that mentioned "bristling" has now gone offline, and from what I saw thanks to the Internet Archive, it wasn't even properly quoted. It's probably best to get rid of it. --90.240.102.48 14:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Koban (police box) into Police box

 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. 

An editor has placed a merger proposal in the article Koban (police box), suggesting merging it into Police box. The merger proposal suggests discussing here.

I oppose the merger. The article on Koban is on a Japanese police box. It is a building in which one or several members of the police force may be on duty. It appears unrelated to the British police box, which Police box describes as a special-purpose telephone booth. If a merger is to take place, merging Police box into Telephone booth seems more useful. Fg2 (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose merging too. Koban is not only to refer physical box or style. It is a system of police service for more direct contacting of police and citizen. It is said that Koban system is employed (exported) to Honolulu, Hawaii, Shanghai, and USA. Japanese edition of Koban describes more details and its function.　See newly added external link, about Koban system in Singapore on article Koban (police box).--Namazu-tron (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I also oppose a merging of these two articles, it is fine how it is. The Japanese idea is quite unique and it probably ends up sometimes named "Police Box" over here because of Wasei-eigo (small rooms often referred to as a box) instead of any direct connection to the British Police Box idea... and in any case, there is no need to smoosh these articles together when Koban can stand on it's own as an article. Nesnad (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I support either a merger or a renaming of this article to "British police box". It is both misleading and ethnocentric to have this article named "police box" and then ignore the occurrences of police boxes outside of the English-speaking world. The English translation for Koban is "police box". I came to this article looking to read about police boxes in general, not British police boxes. --JHP (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why past tense?
Why does this article refer to police boxes in the past tense? I don't know about Britain, but they still have police boxes in Japan. --JHP (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC) If you were to drive southwards, out of Carlisle, Cumbria, UK, you would see, (if it is still there, as I type..)an old, pre-varient of the japanese police box. However, this article refers to the commonly held belief that, all Police boxes, are blue. Which is not true. The popular belief that, police boxes, are concrete, wooden or whatever, is now, with these words, laid to waste.

In the middle of Penrith, Cumbria, UK, stands the Musgrave Memorial, donated by them for whatever reason. As a little boy, as I passed by, on my newspaper round, it was my remit, to give the Policeman on duty there, his morning paper. The Musgrave Memorail served as, many things, and still does to this day,(citation) the near centre of a community of 90 000 souls. A Policeman, on duty, watching over, the Banks that surround him. According to family legend, my Great Uncle Bill, the blacksmith from Sockbridge, had spent many a night, in clink, locked inside, until he sobered up, or saw the light of day. When given the keys of Penrith, you get two. One is Mayoral, the other, to that lock-up. Allegedly, the chimes will make you see, the error of your ways, as it strikes the quarter hours.

Have since learned that, via Tom Moore, (haweswater project) that it was the chiming of the local church, St. Andrews, and not the clock itself, which was always mute. And that both he, and my own father, had many a Saturday night in there, locked up. Currently, am trying to presuade Cumbria Constabulary, to give me access, for a photograph.

My father is dead, he managed to gain the post of Magistrate in later life, why does this require a judge to decide what is, fit for purpose? Have given them, my Mothers' email address, to acquire permission. She is only 86, why is that a problem? It's not as if she is cruisin' the web for toy boys, over 60. Tom thinks that is would be a good laugh. His son, John Thomas thinks, (no laughing in the cheap seats at his name), it would be a good idea. Yet the Police resist.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woolywords (talk • contribs) 09:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

split
This article should be split, and an overview left here. As said by others, here and on the Japanese article talk page, the Japanese thing is called a "police box" not infrequently, and has similar function to the largest type of British police box. A less biased overview article should be built here, and the British centrism should be moved off to another article. The North American concept gets some coverage here, but is ignored in the intro, and for the most part is neglected, so that should be split off. The Japanese concept's article glosses over similar concepts in countries outside of Japan, so that should be mentioned somewhere, here is as good as anyplace. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * British police box for the majority of the contents
 * Police call box, for the North American concept
 * Wouldn't it be easier to write a section on US police boxes, or add paragraphs and sentences throughout the article to compare them? I agree the article is very Brit-centric (Probably because of the tardis making the things iconic) but if you have the info, please add it. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Brit-centric? keep it as is, rename to British police box. The article clearly discourages additions of anything else than British, so there's no need to go for a worldwide view here. NVO (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that non-British information is discouraged. It's just that nobody's come along and added info on the American and Japanese uses, etc.
 * It starts with "A police box was, in 20th century Britain". A very clear notice, it even excludes 21st century Britain. It's one thing to add something, another - to refactor the article altogether, starting with a new lead. NVO (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it does. That was inserted into the lead in July, and I hadn't noticed.  (An earlier edit in June had put the hatnote on.)  Given that, and having reviewed the article, I suppose that moving the current article to British police box and starting a fresh article for an overview incorporating the American and Japanese uses would be better.  Actually, I suppose police box could be a disambiguation page, with pointers to British police box, American police box and Koban (police box). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As one of the people who added much of the info on British police boxes, I fully support the article being expanded for a more international view. I'm neutral on whether the British content is best kept here or moved to a separate article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that most people who come here to read about Police Boxes come because of the 47-year-old Dr Who, and still running, Tv series. Why, then, should anyone want to merge all of the other possible uses of Police Box with it? If you want to have more than one description of a police box based on those in different countries why not just set up a disambiguation page? But leave the direct access to this police box because I think that more people are looking for it than any of the others. I also think that it is hilarious that someone from Wikipedia has annotated this whole subject with a not invented here sign that says it only deals with British police boxes. Did anyone think that Dr Who would travel in a Japanese, South African or even an American police box? Lin (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Red Boxes
Were there ever any red police boxes in Scotland, outside of Glasgow, where I think they were invented? I remember as a kid in the 1980's, all the disused police boxes in Edinburgh were dirty blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.33.192 (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh "Police Information Kiosks"
In the late nineties, at least two Edinburgh police boxes (Princes Street and the Royal Mile) were given touchscreens that provided the public with information about the police force, and could also be used to contact them in an emergency (similar to the Glasgow kiosks mentioned in the article). I believe this service has been stopped, but if anyone has better information than me, it might be worth adding to the article. 92.20.132.171 (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

References to "Stewart"—extremely ambiguous
I note that a significant number of references simply refer to "Stewart: [insert random number here]." For example, the reference preceded by the text, "British police boxes were usually blue, except in Glasgow, where they were red until the late sixties," (reference #2) states simply, "Stewart: 13."

There are seven such ambiguous "Stewart" references, some referred to more than once throughout the article. I can't find any obvious explanation of what this is supposed to be referring to. References must refer to the source of the material in detail so that one could locate that source using just the information provided in the citation; see Citing_sources.

If someone could perhaps let me know what these "Stewart" references are referring to, I'll endeavour to make the necessary changes to the citations so that they properly reflect Wikipedia standards. If that doesn't happen within a reasonable amount of time, I'll take it upon myself to try to find proper references for the material. Failing that, I'll delete the reference and and a "citation needed" tag to those deleted references (as much as I loathe those "citation needed" tags, I do think they'd be appropriate in this case).

Any help in tracking down what these "Stewart" citations actually reference would be most welcome! --Schaea (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm very late to the party, it seems this question hasn't yet been resolved. See The Police Signal Box: A 100 Year History by Robert W. Stewart 1994 http://www.britishtelephones.com/police/boxes.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.34.255 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

British. really?
The article includes pictures of police boxes in the USA, though it is written as if all police boxes are British. Apparently they are not. Shouldn't this be corrected? -- Trippz 10:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Theer are eleven picture, only two of which are American, and one of them is a post, rather than a box. Nobody would dispute that police telephones exist sporadically elsewhere in the world, but this page is about the British police box, which at one time was very widespread. There is an argument that maybe we should have a separate Police telephone page, and this one remains as it is, or moved to Police box (British) or British police box. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the UK version is obviously the more important one. We invented police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made the US info a bit more prominent. Synthetic Woolly Mammoth (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Police box. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081202131357/http://newtownlinford.leicestershireparishcouncils.org/neighbourhoodwatchpoliceteam.html to http://newtownlinford.leicestershireparishcouncils.org/neighbourhoodwatchpoliceteam.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thailand
Thailand also has mini police stations called "ป้อมตำรวจ" in Thai and "police boxes" in English. So far they are not mentioned either here or in the kōban article. &mdash; Hippietrail (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

TARDIS differences
The article notes that "none of the BBC [TARDIS] props has been a faithful replica of the original MacKenzie Trench model." Indeed, one of the main differences (apart from being dimensionally transcendemtal, and the ability to travel in Time and Space) is that wheras the original Police Box doors open outwards, the TARDIS doors open inwards. The mounting of the blue lamp on the roof also appears to be different. 2003:CB:7701:CA00:38DC:AAAC:3993:69B9 (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)