Talk:Daniel Sandford (British Army officer)

Creating a Disambiguation Page for "Daniel Sandford"

I placed the following query on the WP new editors' help page, and got the responses shown. In creating the new disambiguation page, I intend to assume that none of the Daniel Sandfords should be treated as a 'primary topic'. Please let me know your views on this on this proposed change before I take any action.

== How to create a disambiguation page for "Daniel Sandford" ==

There are four "Daniel Sandfords" referred to on Wikipedia:

• Daniel Fox Sandford (1831 - 1906), Bishop of Tasmania from 1883 until 1889
• Daniel Sandford (journalist) (born 1967), BBC Home Affairs Correspondent
• Daniel Sandford (bishop), (1766-1830), Bishop of Edinburgh. (Referred to on the Sandford page; no page for him yet but probably notable enough for one).
• Daniel Sandford, (1882-1972), Brigadier in the British army who became an advisor to Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia.

A search on the words "Daniel Sandford" takes you to the fourth of these. For the moment I have added a "This page refers to" statement on Daniel Sandford (journalist) and Daniel Sandford to differentiate them, but I am aware of the other two people.

My initial view is that there probably needs to be a disambiguation page for these four entries, with the fourth of these entries being renamed something like "Daniel Sandford (brigadier)". Do other editors agree with this? And how should it be done from a structural point of view? I have read guidance at WP:MOSDAB which is clear but I can't find anything on what needs to happen to the actual pages themselves. Can anyone help please? Peteinterpol (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

: My thought on this is that the 4th one should become Daniel Sandford (soldier) and then a disambiguation page created at Daniel Sandford that links to all four of them. Doing it is easy enough: move Daniel Sandford to Daniel Sandford (soldier), then edit the Daniel Sandford page to create the disambiguation page. Do you want to do that, or would you like me to do it? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

:(ec) If there is no primary topic – and you'd need to establish consensus on the talk pages first – then Daniel Sandford would have to be moved to Daniel Sandford (brigadier), and the redirect left behind at Daniel Sandford would have to be replaced with a disambiguation page containing links to pages which exist (so no redlink to the bishop for now). I'd advise that the first step before embarking on any action would be to start a discussion at Talk:Daniel Sandford. For what it's worth, Google gives the primary results for "Daniel Sandford" as the journalist, but that may be an effect of recentism. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)"'

• A note linking to this discussion has been left on the talk pages for both Daniel Fox Sandford and Daniel Sandford (journalist) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the fact that Daniel Sandford the journalist comes up on Google as the primary result is indeed because that is the most recent one. Personally, I would be inclined to say that there is no primary "Daniel Sandford", and so the soldier should be moved to Daniel Sandford (xxx) (either brigadier or soldier, although my preference would be the latter) and have the Daniel Sandford article as the disambiguation page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• I Support the move. I don't believe any of these Sandfords are outstandingly more notable than the others. Liqudluck✽talk 07:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Sandford (British Army officer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130126205935/http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t59245.html to http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t59245.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)