Talk:Police and crime commissioner

Article name change

I disagree with changing the name of this article - "Police and Crime Commissioner" is the title for this role, it should be in capitals. Kookiethebird (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) is clear. Police and crime commissioner isn't a proper noun, so no capitals. But, for example, Avon and Somerset Police and Crime Commissioner is and should use capitals. MRSC (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

And it was apparently later moved back, 10:35, 22 October 2012‎ Mattgirling (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (43 bytes) (+43)‎ . . (Mattgirling moved page Police and crime commissioner to Police and Crime Commissioner over redirect: caps for title) , but this will now been overwritten by the RM below, Andrewa (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

See #Requested move below. Any subsequent move should be discussed in a fresh RM. I do note that http://apccs.police.uk/ does capitalise Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. Andrewa (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What does this role replace?

It may be obvious to residents of England or Wales, but for the rest of us, what is/was the structure that PCCs replace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.53.46 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Commissioners will replace Police authorities. I've added this to the lead. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Length of tenure / termination

It would be relevant to describe (if anyone knows) how long these offices are held once elected, and any mechanism for earlier removal under any circumstances eg for incompetence. Cebderby (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Results

Here's another source for the results: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19970734 --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(England and Wales)

Why is the article of this title now "Police and Crime Commissioner (England and Wales)"? There are no other police and crime commissioner positions on the planet, therefore no other police and crime commissioner articles on Wikipedia. Disambiguation of "(England and Wales)" is not required here. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Youth PCCs

Just wondering whether it's worth creating a section on this topic, and also, whether we should have individual articles for any office holders. I recently considered an article for Paris Brown, but as she held the position for under a week, I don't know whether it's notable enough. Having said that, a post was created, and she held it, albeit briefly. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. See also #Article name change above. Andrewa (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Police and Crime Commissioner → Police and crime commissioner – Police and crime commissioner is not a proper noun. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) states "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper noun". By contrast, articles about individual police and crime commissioners like Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner correctly use capitals. MRSC (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree . Capitals letter should not be used for common names. Mama meta modal (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC).

• Support. the title is not even capitalised in the text of the legislation which established these offices. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversy

PCCs have been extremely controversial - given ridiculously low voter turnout there's a general perception that they're just a sop to the notion of democratic accountability in policing. Might we useful to mention their unpopularity in the article? Gymnophoria (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This will be particularly pertinent if the rôle is to be abolished at some point. The problem I've found is that most of the press coverage merely ridicules the low turnout rather than citing those opposed to rôle's existence. There has been talk of combining the function with proposed City-Region Mayoralties, but again not on the basis of opposition to PCCs per se. Does anyone have any good references citing opposition to the existence of PCCs? Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability?

Are PCCs assumed to be notable, merely by dint of election to the role? (with presumably just enough WP:RS to WP:Verify that).

Particularly re Kim McGuinness. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

An interesting question. By rights, yes, they're notable by virtue of being elected. That's a basic Wikipedia tenant: election to a large enough or significant enough body, and with the budget and responsibilities involved, they meet basic notability criteria. That said, the problems we have are two-fold. Internally, editor numbers on this little corner of the project have plummeted, so the creation and upkeep of election articles is not as reliable as it once was. Externally, the PCC role is not given much coverage in the press, which feeds the idea that they're unimportant. I wouldn't tangle yourself in Wikipolicy on this, we need more common sense than we need rules and regulations. doktorb _words^deeds 20:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

To me, they seem notable, and I note that 77% of English PCCs currently have articles about them. However, to my puzzlement, Caroline Henry has been rejected as allegedly non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.194.95 (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

List of names

This article contains a list of names. It is not accurate. Nor is the list of names in the accompanying template. And, TBH, nor is the list of names in the individual PCC articles. It is ridiculous to expect the details of a newly elected PCC to be entered in three different places. At the very least we should expect it to be done and to be correct in one place - the force-specific PCC article itself. The current list of names both here and in the template add no value if they are incorrect, and even if they were, given WP:NOTDIR and even WP:NOTEVERYTHING itself, just because we *can* build a list of people, it doesn't mean that we *should*, especially if we cannot guarantee that the list is correct.

I made a bold move to remove the names which was tagged unhelpful and reverted. So let's discuss instead.

My assertion is that names do not belong in either this article or the template {{Current Police and Crime Commissioners of England and Wales}}.

Thoughts? 10mmsocket (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I can update the names with reliable sources. Can you give me until the end of the day? Then can we decide where we want to go from there? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I've finished now, but I'm afraid that I'm having some problems with the NavBox. Could somebody assist? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixed - missing "]" on West Mercia. Looks good. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! You've got a better eye than me! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's an example of the problem of inconsistency: Staffordshire PFCC (Ben Adams) - this article is correct. The template lists him as Benedict (despite him being Ben on official page). The PFCC page itself doesn't mention him at all and still has his predecessor as incumbent. Keeping three up to date is difficult. One source would be much easier. And in fact it's four places because they're often listed in the accompanying police force article. --10mmsocket (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I see little value in having the names of the incumbents in the template. They add clutter as well as making work in keeping them up to date. Wire723 (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily for or against the inclusion of names, but I think that the template needs work to make it more readable which might be removing names. I removed (unsourced) political parties and bolded the designations earlier today, but it didn't really make it any easier to read. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I feel the same, which is why I previously deleted those too (but got reverted). Perhaps a compromise, now this article is up to date, is to keep the names here but drop them from the template - so we have one less place to maintain? 10mmsocket (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happy with removing the names, by the way. For example, it wasn't until today that the list of incumbents was updated following the latest election, which was two months ago! Some great editors made some edits in the meantime, but the list wasn't fully updated until today. I do, however, think that the list section minus the names should be kept, as it would only require infrequent updating (not necessarily after each election) and acts as a useful resource for people who want an introduction/almost contents to the subject. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at this - {{Current_Police_and_Crime_Commissioners_of_England_and_Wales/sandbox}} - current version vs. proposed cleaned-up version. I prefer option B cleaned up. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I prefer B too - it's much easier to read! Thanks for your work on that! I know that you'd probably clear this up before publishing anyway, but I think "London Sadiq Khan" should just be "London". FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Another vote for B. Wire723 (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The present template is encyclopaedic. I cannot see the point in Option B - if you do not like the template holding the names, then delete the template entirely.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The template definitely has a point, not just in this article, but in every police commissioner article. The template lets you navigate between them - one click to get to the PCC office, one more click to get to the PCC incumbent (assuming the names are removed). The real issue is that the names go out of date. One extra click to get to the incumbent's article isn't a big price to pay - especially as not all have articles - either yet or ever. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)