Wikipedia talk:WikiPolice

Proposed Merger with WikiBishop

 * 1) Oppose WikiPolice is significantly different to WikiBishop, and the requestor did not give any reasons.Acather96 (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per Acather96. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you making a vote? This is such a low-traffic page, we can simply discuss the change, can't we? I didn't originally provide a reason because it seemed pretty obvious to me that they were pretty much overlapping concepts. WikiBishop being a one-liner certainly contributes to this. If you have such a strong opinion on the difference between the concepts, would you please consider expanding the WikiBishop page a bit, so that it meaning becomes more clear to others? Maybe it is intended as a more benign being than WikiPolice? I can only guess, as the page stands... --Waldir talk 19:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, The 2 do kind of have significantly different concepts. The Bishop helps users, The Police reports vandalism, There's (more than) A subtle difference there. I agree the Bishop page could do with some expansion but I'm not quite sure what you can add to it. If I didn't know better, I'd think that the proposed merge could be a way to avoid any page expansion (Mad conspiricy theory alert!) The C of E.           God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see the distinction, but why "Bishop"? Surely "Legislator" or "Politician" would better capture the meaning you're after. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to Waldir, yes I guess maybe that a vote wasn't really needed. Feel free to delete it and simply discuss as you wish. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I think since the Bishop page is so small and yet has no relevence to the Wikipolice and (I suspect) this merge proposal may be just a lazy way of avoiding improving it. That the Bishop pgae should just be deleted as it doesn't really make a good fauna. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Acather96: "deleting" the vote would make the next messages lose context. I did remove the "support" and "oppose" section headings, though, since they weren't being of much use anyway.
 * @The C of E: lol, no, I am not avoiding any expansion. As I explained in my previous message, I really had misunderstood the meaning of the WikiBishop page, since it was so short, and thought they were quite more similar than they apparently are, which would justify a legitimate merge.
 * @Fences and windows: yes, a rename would help, indeed, but it wouldn't be enough. Expansion would be good, but if nobody actually steps up to do it, The C of E is right: the page bears little value as it is and should perhaps be deleted.
 * Waldir talk 18:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @The C of E: We also have WikiKing and WikiKnight. I guess somebody was going with a chess theme here; possibly they couldn't come up with a WikiRôle for Queen, Rook and Pawn. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe call a WikiRook an editor who follows policy straght as it is written? The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Before creating more fauna, we should consolidate what we have. Also, the trend should be finding good names for the personalities, rather than the opposite. --Waldir talk 09:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, the Rook suggestion there I was only mentioning as a hypothetical fauna. (back on topic) I think the Police page could definatly do with a few pictures and as for some of the others theres no real point in the fauna if you can't let others know you are one of them so I'd propose that every fauna has userboxes for users to identify themselves with that particular fauna. If the fauna doesn't have userboxes, then theres little point in keeping them as only fauna lookers (avoiding the word troll) would know of them and would carry little weight in the community. The C of E.           God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Secret Police
Reliable sources are difficult to find on this topic, which I suspect why it was deleted from the main page but:

Then there are the Secret Police. Since this group is highly secretive, not much information exists about them and their activities, and what does is quickly deleted. A reference, which while it cannot be called reliable, does indicate that there are suspicions concerning such an organisation.

If anyone can find reliable sources for the activities of the Wikipedia Secret Police do merge back into main article.

Govynn (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)