Talk:Royalty and Diplomatic Protection Department

I removed:
 * The Department had 423 uniformed and 48 civilian members in 2003, including 90 Royal Protection Officers, as well as 508 in the Diplomatic Protection Group, and additional officers in the Westminster Division.

Do the maths! -- Necrothesp 21:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this should be -


 * The Department had 423 uniformed and 48 civilian members in 2003, including 90 Royal Protection Officers. There are also 508 in the separate Diplomatic Protection Group, and additional officers in the Westminster Division.Ncox (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be merged, as it is a sufficiently important unit in its own right (i.e. attracts quite a lot of publicity). Ncox (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Date linking and Manual Of Style
I changed the date linking in the article because The Manual of Style  here says "the use of full date formatting is now deprecated." Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, that is taken from the subpage which is explicitly not WP policy. Second, some history.. one user went on a crusade across a hundred or so individual pages, forcing a backdoor change.  So no. Prince of Canadat 04:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is taken directly from the MoS (not a subpage of anything) and it is explicitly wiki policy. Have a look at the Sarah Palin article (or the John McCain article). As you are so certain in your opinion, why don't you try wikilinking dates in the Palin article? I am again date formatting this article  in line with the wiki MoS which I quoted above. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually no. The 'convention' was put through on the subpage, after brute-force backdoor changes made by a certain user who shall remain nameless.  But whatever.  As usual on WP, he who yells loudest gets whatever he wants. Prince of Canadat 00:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't fuss me too much how this became policy. But it is policy, so I apply it when I edit pages. Maybe it will be overturned one day, but until then..... --Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It bothers me because the user in question didn't actually seek consensus in the right place; he went crusading about until it was a fait accompli. Prince of Canadat 00:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Issue with type of weapon of the MP5
The German Heckler & Koch MP5, is a widely used submachine gun, the difinition of that (taken from Wikipedias page on sub machine guns) is: "A submachine gun (SMG) is a firearm that combines the automatic fire of a machine gun". Now for anyone who does not know, a firearm firing on automatic means if you pull the trigger without taking pressure off, bullets will continue to fire. A semi-automatic means that a bullet fires, every time the trigger is pulled. One user has been concerned over the fact that it is called a semi-automatic carbine, this is because the British Police do not use fully automatic, and this is what they designate it as. So calling it a submachine gun is plainly wrong, because in the case of the British Police it is a semi-automatic carbine. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 09:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you dont wish to take my word for it, see This picture of an armed officer in London, taken by Adrian Pringstone

Zoom in on the fire selector, (above the trigger, if you did not know) and you will see a the selector pointing to a white box with a bullet in, and a line going through it. The other box is a red box with a bullet in it, meaning semi-automatic, if it was automatic it would have a box above that with many bullets in it, designating fully auto. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 09:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Graphics
Either this article or Diplomatic Protection Group could use some different images - as it stands, the two articles use the same two photos, and look confusingly similar, at first glance. --McGeddon (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not if your brain understands the different names of the pages, and content. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 18:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As I say, at first glance. When I clicked a link from one to the other, it took me a moment to realise I'd been taken to a different article rather than the top of the same one.
 * I've swapped the images around for now, to make the distinction between them clearer. --McGeddon (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, cool. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 20:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is redundant
There is no trace of this department anymore, but the information is still good and should probably be moved to Protection Command - but only when Specialist and Royalty Protection Command is moved there over the redirect. See Specialist Operations for accurate structure. ninety:one 21:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)