Talk:John Waters (British Army officer, born 1935)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

---

John Waters (British general) → John Waters (British Army officer) – The article was moved without discussion, and the article's creator has requested the restoration of its original title. Appended below is a copy of the discussion elucidating the reasons for the move as well as the reasons for its cancellation and the return of the main title header to its initial form.—Roman Spinner (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I notice that you have moved John Waters (British Army officer) to John Waters (British general). Under WP:MOVE discussion should really take place on the relevant talk page before page moves are initiated. Indeed the page move should not take place until there is agreement. In this case I don't see how the change helps distinguish from an American officer - the article title includes "British" before and after the move. The vast majority of British Officers have the distinguisher (British Army officer) - the use of (British general) is most unusual. Please can I respectfully suggest that we move the article back? Dormskirk (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I welcome your kind comment and appreciate the fact that as the creator of the John Waters (British Army officer) article, you contacted me before initiating further steps. First, as to the move itself, having performed numerous moves, I have noted that over 90 percent of those are non-controversial "housekeeping" adjustments which do not require discussion or consensus. If a discussion questioning the appropriateness of a disambiguating qualifier already exists on the subject's discussion page, then, of course, any projected move should solicit consensus before being initiated. In the same vein, a tendentious move such as James Jones (politician)→James Jones (convicted criminal), even if true, should not proceed. In the present case, however, the talk page contains no discussion and the qualifier "(general)" is analogous to such numerous other instances of use as Samuel Breck (general), John Cochrane (general), Joseph Conrad (general), James B. Davis (general), Thomas Duncan (general), James Ferguson (general), John Garland (general), Michael Hayden (general), John McAuley Palmer (general) or William Wells (general). In the rare instance of two same-named generals, more-specific qualifiers such as James Jones (American general) and James Jones (Australian general) may be used or, in another rare occurrence of both generals having the same nationality, James Jones (Australian Air Force general) and James Jones (Australian Army general) could be considered or, simply, James Jones (Air Force general) and James Jones (Army general).

In this instance, if there were no other generals named John Waters, then John Waters (general), would have sufficed, since all the entries are, in the end, sorted out at the John Waters disambiguation page. However, since an American general also bearing that name is likewise listed on the disambiguation page, the additional indication of national identification seemed appropriate even if due to the American general's use of his middle initial, he requires no parenthetical qualifier. Perhaps you may prefer that this article be moved to John Waters (Commander-in-Chief of the British Army) or John Waters (British Army Commander-in-Chief), each of which contains a few letters more than John Waters (British Army officer), but is more-appropriate to his rank, since describing an Army leader as "officer" may be comparable to using such qualifiers as "(politician)", "(legislator)" or "(MP)" for an individual who also served as "(president)" or "(prime minister)". Moreover, a number of those who are disambiguated as "(British Army officer)", such as Thomas Evans (British Army officer) or John Graham (British Army officer) never rose to the rank of general. However, if you still feel that since "the vast majority of British Officers have the distinguisher (British Army officer)", this entry should also remain as such, I will list the article in WP:RM and, within a seven-day period, barring lack of consensus, the main title header would be eligible to revert to its original form. Please let me know if such a resolution would be acceptable to you.—Roman Spinner (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the care with which you have answered my point and the sincerity of your argument. Nevertheless I still believe that since "the vast majority of British Officers have the distinguisher (British Army officer)" and therefore this entry should also remain as it was. I am content therefore for you to list the article in WP:RM. Thanks again. Dormskirk (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Should not have been moved. The standard disambiguator for all British Army officers of whatever rank has long been "(British Army officer)". -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Waters (British Army officer, born 1935). 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://web.archive.org/web/20071022232245/http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/caboff/pb00/pb00-f.pdf to http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/caboff/pb00/pb00-f.pdf

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) 05:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)