Talk:Vancouver Police Department

Fair use rationale for Image:VPD patch reg.png

Image:VPD patch reg.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VPD coat of arms.jpg

Image:VPD coat of arms.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

shame

hahahaha they still have the ER sign for the police symbol. Canada = UK number 2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.218.215.142 (talk) 02:09:01, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

---

There's no ER sign (which I think you meant "EIIR" (Royal Cypher) on VPD logo. There is the crown which symbolizes that the police force derives its authority from the Crown, the Queen of Canada. It is very common for British Realm's police force to have Royal crown as part of the symbol.--Cahk 10:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What kind of side arm do thje police carry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.235.232 (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Municipal police forces

Is there a list anywhere of who the 11 municipalities are who have their own police?

Ones I know of: Port Moody Vancouver New West Delta West Vancouver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.218.83 (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Pay and numbers

It would be interesting to know how much police officers get paid in this organisation, or at least to know how much a new constable and the Chief Constable get paid. It would also be interesting to know how many officers there are at each rank. Kookiethebird (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Fallen Members

Hello, I noticed that my addition of the fallen officers list was removed by Magnolia677, as it apparently violated WP:NOTMEMORIAL, however I have reverted it, based on the fact that the pages of multiple other law law enforcement agencies, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Los Angeles Police Department have included such lists, to name a few. This leads me to conclude that this sort of thing isn't likely a violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, as we are including the names in a mostly departmentally factual manner, not in the form of recognition as such. If I am incorrect, please don't hesitate to correct me here, and/or revert my reversion, as such a verdict would require a tremendous amount of effort and overhauling of many department's pages. Thanks, Fhsig13 (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

A couple of things here. First of all, trying justify doing something in one article based upon what is done in another article is not always as helpful as it seems per WP:OTHERCONTENT. It could be that the content in the other article shouldn't be there, or it could be that there are differences in the way it's being presented. For example, Los Angeles Police Department#Fallen officers doesn't seem very similar to what you've tried to add to this article. The LA PD has a brief section of sourced prose followed by a table of breaking down the numbers killed by cause of death. This also seems to be how it's done in New York City Police Department#Fallen officers and Houston Police Department#Fallen officers, while Chicago Police Department#Fallen officers just has a short section of prose. The way this content is being presented in these three articles does not include a long list of names. Royal Canadian Mounted Police#Fallen Members (by the way please review MOS:SECTIONCAPS) does seem similar to what you're trying to do here, but I think that's probably because it looks like you added that particular section to that article with this edit. Again, that doesn't automatically mean you're wrong, but pointing to content you added to one article and then trying to use that as a reason to justify using the same content in another article might seem to some to be a bit inappropriate. My guess is that this kind of thing has most likely be discussed before somewhere at WT:WPLE and it might be covered in guidelines (if such guidelines exist) established by that WikiProject for articles like this; so, you maybe try post a {{Please see}} on that WikiProject talk page to try and get more feedback. It does appear the subject has been discussed before based upon this, so maybe you'll find something helpful in one of those discussions.

Finally, you were WP:BOLD in adding the content to the article which is fine, but then you're addition was reverted. The reversion didn't appear to be obvious vandalism, so it would've have been best for you to start discussing things at that point per WP:BRD. It's bold, revert, discuss; it's not bold, revert, revert back, discuss. Your addition has been removed a second time by a different editor, so I wouldn't suggest reverting again until you can establish a consensus for inclusion. The second editor who reverted then posted something on your user talk page which is how I found this discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fhsig13: When you're bold and subsequently reverted, so you're expected to discuss things on the article talk page to address the reverting editors' concerns and see if you can establish a consensus for making the changes you propose. You don't simply revert back to your preferred version. There's probably a way to include some information about police personnel who have been killed in the line of duty, but whether that should include a list of each officer is something that should be discussed and established first. As pointed out above, in some articles there is some general content related to the numbers of officers killed and their causes of death, but there aren't really any lists of individuals persons. The exception to this is the RCMP article, but that is content you added and that content might not even belong there per WP:OTHERCONTENT. I'm going to ping Magnolia677 and John from Idegon since they were the editors who removed this section before for one reason or another and they might be able to better clarify their concerns here. So, for the time being I suggest you leave the article as is per WP:STATUSQUO until this is resolved one way or the other. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Aye, I wasn't bold. John wanted sources, and I gave him that. I had nothing to discuss, so I refrained, because I'm sick of the stupid debates you start over irrelevant standards, which is what forced me into my semi-retirement. Now I suggest you stop being an asswipe and sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. You edit your articles, and I'll edit mine. If you keep following me around wikipedia, critcizing all I do, when you aren't an admin, I will ensure you get what is coming to you. Last warning, Sir. Your move. Fhsig13 (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)