- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was no consensus to move. As was recommended in the discussion, this should be taken up on a project-level talk page to gain wider input and consensus. Aervanath (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Wilton (Australian Army officer) → John Wilton (general) — Consistency with all other Australian generals' pages which need disambiguation. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The current form does seem much more informative, it would seem more appropriateto move the others in line with this one, which is more commonly used for militay figures in general. David Underdown (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The current form does seem much more informative" - I do not agree. He's not notable because he's an "Australian Army officer"; he's notable because he's a general.
- "it would seem more appropriateto move the others in line with this one," - Why? It doesn't disambiguate very well at all. There could be half a dozen "John Wilton (Australian Army officer)", but there's only one "John Wilton (general)". Also, surely it would seem more appropriate to make this one consistent with all of the other Australian generals!?
- "which is more commonly used for militay figures in general." - No, that is not the case. The British ones seem to use this cumbersome convention, but not any other nation. The British convention is less common than the "(general)" convention. And anyway, he is/was not British, he is/was Australian, and the Australian convention is to use "(general)".
- I don't want to sound rude, and I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight, but all you have done is to simply state your opinion. You have not provided any supporting argument, nor any supporting information, and you have quoted a "statistic" which is either inaccurate, or irrelevant, or both.
- I am unhappy with the tone of my reply, but I am perplexed by the vague and arbitrary nature of your posting.
- Perhaps I am misunderstanding something? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer the title as it remains now; it's more informative and less bland and vague (General in which army?) and wouldn't mind seeing the other articles retitled like this. Skinny87 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Australian Army officer tells you which force he served with, and a result of that also limits the time period in which he served (since it must be post-federation). There is certainly more information in that than in just saying he was a general. In my view being a general doesn't necessarily make someone automatically notable, it's his career as a whole, and most of that wasn't as a general officer (though in this particular case one could quibble about the time he held a British rather than Australian commission I suppose...). I suppose the sample I have viewed does tend more towrd British figures, but of the ones I've seen on DYK, for eg American Civil War figures do tend to specify which side they were on if disambiguation is necessary. David Underdown (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) None of the following, nor their sub-categories, use "XxNationxx XxForcexx Officer"
2) In fact, the ONLY places I see it used with any consistency are:
3) All of the following use "(general)"/"(admiral)"
4) Some are inconsistent, but tend to favour "(general)"
- Category:Confederate Army generals
- John Adams (Confederate Army officer)
- Henry DeLamar Clayton (general)
- Samuel Cooper (general)
- Alfred Cumming (general)
- George Gordon (Civil War General)
- Thomas Green (general)
- Richard Griffith (general)
- Louis Hébert (Confederate Army officer)
- Benjamin Huger (general)
- Edward Johnson (general)
- Sam Jones (Confederate Army officer)
- James H. Lane (general)
- Samuel McGowan (general)
- Humphrey Marshall (general)
- William Miller (Confederate Army officer)
- John Pegram (general)
- Preston Smith (general)
- William Steele (general)
- Richard Taylor (general)
- Richard Waterhouse (general)
- Category:Continental Army generals
- William Alexander (American general)
- Henry Champion (general)
- Robert Howe (soldier)
- Charles Lee (general)
- Andrew Lewis (soldier)
- William Maxwell (Continental Army general)
- James Reed (soldier)
- John Thomas (general)
- William Thompson (general)
5) In Category:Australian generals, there are 10 "(general)", 2 "(Australian general)", "Edward Hutton (British Army officer)" and "John Wilton (Australian Army officer)". Other than redirects, a search on (Australian Army officer) returns only one other page: Michael Stone (Australian Army officer).
6) (general) is usually an adequate disambiguation. If not, (Australian general) seems to work if/when needed. The only exception so far is John Raymond Broadbent (1893-1972) and John Raymond Broadbent (1914-2006); "Australian Army officer" would NOT have helped that one! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet (RAAF officer) seems to have gained reasonable traction as a disambiguator - I suppose (air officer) which would be the nearest equivalent to (general) is probably less recognisable to the world at large. I think the key thing for me is that these people are notable army officers on the whole rather than notable generals, which to me would imply someone whose generalship was recognised as being on a par with people like Wellington, Napoleon, Eisenhower etc (and for Australian context, perhaps Monash), the sort of people in other words that you'd expect to see in a book of the world's 50 greatest generals or something similar, whereas we're looking at people who are without doubt notable members of their own militaries, but don't quite rise to that level. Also, the articles tend to actually begin "Joe Bloggs was an x army officer", not he "was a general in x army" (though of course in many cases the name is preceded by the rank so it could be argued that this is partly a matter of avoiding repetition). As for the difficult cases, I've definitely seen (British Army infantry officer) and (British Army cavalry officer) used in one case! Overall, this doesn't seem to be something that's specifically addressed by any guideline, and we're not likely to get a particularly wide view by taling about it on one page. I suspct we really need to move to a project page. David Underdown (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"And yet (RAAF officer) seems to have gained reasonable traction" - Agreed. It is MUCH less cumbersome than "(Australian Army officer)". "(RAAF officer)" is of manageable length; "(Australian Army officer)" tends to be MUCH longer than that which it is disambiguating!
"I think the key thing for me is that these people are notable army officers on the whole rather than notable generals" - Ah ha. For me, that's splitting hairs. As I've said/implied, whatever rank "he" was whenever he did what he did, he's "historically known" by his highest rank.
"which to me would imply someone whose generalship ... " - You're welcome to your pov, but I don't share it.
"though of course in many cases the name is preceded by the rank so it could be argued that this is partly a matter of avoiding repetition" - Indeed. That is exactly what I would argue. For example, I have been going through railway station articles changing "XXX railway station is a railway station on the YYY line ... " to "XXX railway station on the YYY line ... "
"Overall, this doesn't seem to be something that's specifically addressed by any guideline, and we're not likely to get a particularly wide view by taling about it on one page." - Agreed.
However, my proposal is MUCH simpler: With the exception of this ONE page, NONE of the pages for Australian generals are titled "(Australian Army Officer)". This one page is inconsistent with ALL other pages for Australian generals, and I have proposed that it be made consistent.
It seems to me that at no time have you addressed this particular issue. I guess I'd like you to. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I guess since I see this as being the "right" disambiguator to use, I don't see a reason to change this one, just because everyone is out of step. That's partly why I suggested taking this to a project page, if everyone else thinks "general" is sufficient, then fine, we can move this one and that's it, otherwise we move all the others, but we're not going to establish a consensus here. Sure it might be nicer if there was a similarly recognised abbreviation for Australian Army or British Army equivalent to RAAF, RAF and so on, but there isn't. Mostly I don't see the length as too much of an issue, it only has o be typed once in a given article where you're linking, and a reader coming at things cold isn't necessarily goign to try and guess one anyway, they'll probably just type the name, find it's a disambiguation page, and pick the one they want off the list, or slightly more complicated, land on the one that's been determined to be the "primary topic", then find their way to the disambiguation, and then similarly pick it off the dab page. David Underdown (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Are you planning to become a politician? That's one of the best non-answers-that-don't-involve-lying that I've seen for some time. You have neatly avoided addressing all of my questions. Again:
However, my proposal is MUCH simpler: With the exception of this ONE page, NONE of the pages for Australian generals are titled "(Australian Army Officer)". This one page is inconsistent with ALL other pages for Australian generals, and I have proposed that it be made consistent.
It seems to me that at no time have you addressed this particular issue. I guess I'd like you to. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the numbers of pages involved, and the ease of moving pages, there isn't a significant difference in effort in moving just one page, or the ones which (as I see it) are using the "wrong" disambiguator (and even if a much larger number of pages was involved, it would still be a fairly trivial task for a bot). I'd much rather just establish what the "right" disambiguator is, which as I say increasingly looks like we're not going to achieve consensus on which of us is actually "right" here. So far you've proposed a move, and two people have opposed, for broadly similar reasons. Now as you correctly say that leaves this one out of step, with other Australian articles at least, which is why I suggest we move up to the project level to get wider input. David Underdown (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmm. Good response. It doesn't answer my question, but it certainly addresses my question.
However, I'm somewhat disturbed by the situation that you are completely ignoring the facts, and pushing your opinion as the "right" answer without any supporting evidence, just with someone elses supporting opinion. This is not a discussion of facts and their merit; this is you saying, "this is my opinion, and I'm going to ignore facts and not budge from it." I'm afraid I don't know how to deal with that approach. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From where I'm standing I could say the same of you... I've tried to explain why I think this using the right disambiguator, and the others aren't. Why should Australians use a different format from British ones, and why should army officers be in effect completely different from other services even within Australia? Wikipedia works by consensus, and we clearly don't seem to be able to reach that between us (I am reminded of the old saw that two housewives arguing over the back fence will never come to agreement since they are arguing from different premises). I don't think I'm ignoring any facts, just looking at them differently (and some might view your last comment as coming dangerously close to failing WP:AGF), but clearly we've reached an impasse, and we need to get wider input to get anywhere. David Underdown (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear. You seem to have extracted an interpretation of my words that I had not intended. Clearly, I did not express myself well enough, and seem to have upset you - not my intention.
- "From where I'm standing I could say the same of you ... " - Well you could, but I don't understand what you would base that on. I was under the impression that I had ONLY presented facts, not opinions. I have re-read what I wrote. OK, I expressed some opinions at the start, but from the point where I presented the data, I believe I have only expressed facts. Conversely, have you expressed ANY facts?
- "Australian Army officer tells you which force he served with, and a result of that also limits the time period in which he served" - Well, that's a fact.
- "And yet (RAAF officer) seems to have gained reasonable traction as a disambiguator" - Another fact.
- "Overall, this doesn't seem to be something that's specifically addressed by any guideline," - And another.
- OK, you have expressed facts, but NONE of the address my proposal/hypotheseis/whatever-you-want-to-call-it.
- "Why should Australians use a different format from British ones" - Isn't it more a case of "Why should British ones use a different format from almost everyone else? (Not rhetorical - I'd like your answer to that.)
- "Wikipedia works by consensus ... " - I hope that is less than half the story. I hope Wikipedia first works on the basis of FACTS, and THEN by consensus.
- "and we clearly don't seem to be able to reach that" - I haven't been trying to reach consensus yet - I'm still trying to separate fact from opinion.
- "(I am reminded ... " - Ah. The old ones are the best ones, aren't they! ;-)
- "I don't think I'm ignoring any facts, just looking at them differently" - I don't know. As I've said, it seems (note: seems) to me that there are certain facts and questions that you are ignoring. You may not think them important or relevant, but never-the-less, you seem to me to be ignoring them.
- I don't wish to respond to your last sentence, other than to say I have a different point-of-view on that.
- I hope that clarifies things for you and explains why I think the meaning you have taken from my words is unfortunate, and not what I intended.
- Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the end of the day I don't think the "numbers game" is particularly important. For the reasons I've tried to set out, I see the (Xian Army officer) format as being more helpful to readers in the long-run since it tells them more upfront, and would be happy to see it adopted across different coutries. I'm not sure to what extent absolute consistency matters in any case, most casual users are unlikely to guess how we've disambiguated things anyway (why in brackets anyway, well there are techincal reasons within the Mediawiki software, but unless you know those, is it actually the most natural approach?), so they're goign to end up looking at pages of search results, or a disambiguation page anyway, so giving info up front seems sensible. If we just said well more x do it this way, we'd never manage to change anything. David Underdown (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. "I'm not sure to what extent absolute consistency matters in any case". I'm afraid I don't know how to deal with that approach either. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
So
(1) "Why should Australians use a different format from British ones" - Isn't it more a case of "Why should British ones use a different format from almost everyone else? (Not rhetorical - I'd like your answer to that.)
(2) "The result of the move request was no consensus to move. As was recommended in the discussion, this should be taken up on a project-level talk page to gain wider input and consensus." - Well, you opened Pandora's box ... Please advise me as to which page you have raised the issue upon. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Becuase as I've tried to explain, I see this format as being "better"/more infromative etc. I guess it really needs to go to WT:MILHIST as potentially it covers many task forces. I haven't raised it, I was rather assuming you would since you're the one arguing for change here, but I'll see if I have time. David Underdown (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! You're quick, aren't you!!
- You have indeed explained (not just "tried to") your pov; I just don't agree with it.
- "I see this ... " - Yes, I know. And I don't.
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history - Hmmm. What about the Australian page first? (i.e. That is a question, and I'm seeking your opinion in answer.)
- "since you're the one arguing for change here" - Oh really!? I'm arguing for consistency! YOU are the one arguing for change!! And I'll repeat for the third time, "I'm seeking your opinion in answer".
- As I've said, I'm not looking for a fight, but I AM asking you some questions, and I WOULD like you to at least make an attempt to answer them. To date, you seem to have avoided almost every question I've asked. (Whereas, I think I have at least attempted to answer those questions you have asked of me. Now, I'm not pretending to be an Archangel, but I am trying. Are you? And I've also shown I'm prepared to admit when I'm wrong. Have you?)
- Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small}
