Talk:Edward Clive (British Army officer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 19 December 2015[edit]

The following is a closed 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: moved. Unopposed after a couple of weeks. Jenks24 (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Edward Clive (British Army officer) → Edward Henry Clive – Name is a better disambiguation than occupation. He was also not the only British Army officer of this name: Edward Clive, 1st Earl of Powis was made a colonel in the Army in 1794. Opera hat (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 6 January 2016[edit]

The following is a closed 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: moved to Edward Clive (British Army general). Consensus appears to have developed that this is a preferable title. Number 57 19:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Henry Clive → Edward Clive (British Army officer, born 1837) – Clive was known as Edward Clive - he is referred to as this in several contemporary articles in The Times. Per WP:MIDDLES we should not use middle names as disambiguators if they were not actually used in practice; despite the claim above, per our guidelines name is not in this case a better disambiguation than occupation and to use it as such would be going against all our usual practices. The previous RM 'discussion' was closed with zero contributions (probably not altogether unsurprising given it was over Christmas). As Edward Clive, 1st Earl of Powis was also an army officer (although only really in the militia) we should go with the usual way to distinguish between disambiguated names and use year of birth. However, I would also be happy to revert to Edward Clive (British Army officer), given this Clive was a career regular army general and the Earl of Powis was only a militia colonel and not principally known for being a soldier. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose the proposed title as clumsy and overlong. No title including disambiguation is ideal. While accepting he was commonly known as Edward Clive, I personally think that using a form of his name by which he was sometimes known (e.g. in the Army List, London Gazette, Who's Who) is better than using a form by which no-one would ever be known or referred to outside Wikipedia. I recognise that the section of WP:NCP to which Necrothesp refers could be taken to oppose this point of view, but WP:NCP also says right at the top of the page that the guidelines "should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia's general policy on article naming". The proposed title directly contravenes WP:PRECISION. If his military service has to be used as disambiguation, then Edward Clive (British Army general) would be better. Opera hat (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everyone is referred to by their full name in the Army List and Who's Who! Taking that as an acceptable article title would invalidate all our usual naming conventions. See WP:NCPDAB and read the section about the two drummers - we could disambiguate them using their middle names (they are undoubtedly sometimes known by them in official sources), but we don't because these are not the names by which they're commonly known, and that is specifically used as an example in the guidelines. And our usual convention is to further disambiguate British Army officers by year of birth, not rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, your convention is to disambiguate by birth. Rank was used to disambiguate several articles including the two Lord Robert Mannerses and Charles Churchills until you moved them as part of your recent undiscussed moves to the (British Army officer, born xxxx) format. Also, if one is going to use lifespan as disambiguation, the guideline implies year of death is preferred for historical figures. Year of birth is only used for the two poker players given as an example because they're both alive. Opera hat (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, and I received the thanks of several other editors who specialise in military history for doing so. WP:NCPDAB actually says (since you clearly missed it) "For historical figures when there is no dominant qualifier (at least no practical one), the descriptor may be omitted in favour of a single use of the date of birth or death" (Italics mine), so where is the implication that "year of death is preferred for historical figures"? Heriot is merely disambiguated by his year of death because his year of birth is not definite. As for rank, every general was once a major-general, not to mention the fact that "general" can mean brigadier-general, major-general and lieutenant-general as well as "full" general, so how does this disambiguate anyone? In any case, someone looking for a military figure is far more likely to know the era in which they lived (suggested by year of birth or death) than the exact rank they held at their death (or indeed, since generals transcend branches, the arm of service into which they were originally commissioned). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • You still haven't answered the main point, which is the conflict with the parent naming convention, WP:Article titles—specifically the section on precision and disambiguation, which reads: "when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary". The "British Army officer" disambiguation is widely used, but as far as I am aware there is no formal naming convention to support it, so preserving its use is no argument for deviating from this fundamental principle. I don't particularly care whether this article is at Edward Henry Clive, Edward Clive (British Army general), Edward Clive (Hereford MP) (and the article was created because he was an MP not a British Army officer), Edward Clive (1837–1916) or whatever, but using one qualifier is better than using two. Opera hat (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • The parent naming convention is irrelevant when we have a more detailed specific naming convention. And one of our fundamental principles, applied across the board, is WP:COMMONNAME. His common name was clearly Edward Clive. As I'm sure you do know, despite not being specifically proscribed (although it is recommended against), middle names are never usually used for disambiguation on Wikipedia if they are not commonly used to refer to an individual, and many RM discussions have reinforced this principle, so why should this be an exception? It really doesn't matter why the article was created. He was an MP for only two years and a career army officer for most of his adult life, rising to the second-highest possible rank. Clearly he is therefore more notable as an army officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The parent naming convention is not irrelevant. As I pointed out above, WP:Naming conventions (people) says right at the top that "This guideline [...] should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia's general policy on article naming, Wikipedia:Article titles". Yes, there are more specific naming conventions where aspects of the general policy on article naming are waived. Those concerning people are listed at WP:NCP#Scope of this guideline, but "Naming conventions (British Army officers)" is not one of them. Article titles for people should take both WP:NCP and WP:AT into consideration. You are clinging to your interpretation of WP:NCPDAB and ignoring everything else that contradicts it.
If WP:COMMONNAME could be applied then the article would be at Edward Clive, which of course it can't be. The whole point of all the guidance about disambiguation in article titles existing at all is for when the simplest, most common name cannot be used, as is the case here. I assume you are not trying to claim that "Edward Clive (British Army officer, born 1837)" is actually the most common way that reliable sources refer to General Edward Henry Clive JP DL, of Perrystone and Ballycroy. Opera hat (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way was pointing out that you had overlooked part of something on which your argument seemed to rely not civil? But it did strike me as somewhat strange that you were arguing something based on a very short section that you didn't seem to have actually read properly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per naming convention 73.214.31.49 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - The proposed title looks too long to type exactly. And I cannot favor using parenthetical disambiguation without a reason aside from usage of the middle name. Also, I oppose "(British Army general)". Unless there is a better alternative, let's stick with natural disambiguation for now. George Ho (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does anyone need to type it exactly? The qualifier is purely for disambiguation purposes. Nobody is expected to type it exactly. So what you're saying is that you oppose our guidelines? Surely this is not the place to debate that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what you're saying is that you oppose our guidelines? WP:NATURALDIS: "1. Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." In this case, the man's full name. WP:PARENDIS: "3. Parenthetical disambiguation, i.e. adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name: Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions leads to an optimal article title." (My emphasis.) WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: "Naturalness – The title is one [...] that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles." So yes, it is expected that people should be able to type it exactly. And WP:NC "Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." Your proposed title is just too long, and unnecessarily so given that there are shorter options available. The current title is the shortest and most precise. Opera hat (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And contradicts our specific naming conventions for biographical articles. You know, those things that have been worked out by people who write them over many years, as opposed to general guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Edward Clive (British Army officer, born 1837) — ridiculously verbose, convoluted and artificial; utterly implausible as a search term
  2. Edward Clive (British Army officer) — ambiguous with the Yeomanry officer Edward Herbert, 2nd Earl of Powis
  3. Edward Clive (Hereford MP) — ambiguous with Edward Clive (died 1845), who was also MP for Hereford
Per WP:NATURALDIS, the current title Edward Henry Clive is by far the simplest, clearest and least ambiguous option.
<rant>This whole nomination seems to me to a bizarre case of taking one part of the naming policy as if it were some sort of iron law, and applying it without consideration of the other parts of the policy (such as WP:NATURALDIS) and without regard for the consequences. The nominator's proposed new title is a like some sort of parody of wikpiedia naming conventions, and it is a solution to a non-problem.
This isn't like the John Smiths, where every permutation of nationality and occupation is ambiguous, requiring combinations of multiple disambiguators. This is a simple case with a simple solution which is already in place.</rant> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have to say I'm getting rather puzzled here. What exactly about the sentence "Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised" (WP:MIDDLES) is not clear? It seems pretty unequivocal to me. I'm also rather stumped by the concept that a detailed naming convention (WP:NCP) should be ignored in favour of a more general naming convention. Why on earth do we bother to have the more detailed naming convention then? I can't help thinking there's an element of "I don't agree with the convention so I'm not going to follow it, but I am going to quote from another convention which I do agree with to back up my argument" going on here. It seems obvious that the more specific convention should apply in cases where they may conflict (although I'm not even sure they do in this case). Yes, we all know there are exceptions to guidelines and they don't need to be followed rigidly, but the convention that the name part of the article title for a biographical article should never be a name by which the individual was not commonly known is a very long-established one and has been backed up by the result in numerous RMs. I don't see making an exception for this one article being very useful for Wikipedia or indeed making a lot of sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time now: WP:Naming conventions (people) "should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia's general policy on article naming, Wikipedia:Article titles". What exactly about this sentence is not clear? WP:NCP does not supersede WP:AT; WP:NCP is part of WP:AT.
You are taking two sentences in isolation from WP:NCP: WP:MIDDLES "adding middle names... merely for disambiguation purposes... is not advised"—is not advised, not "is forbidden", leaving it open that sometimes it may be the best option—and WP:NCPDAB "where disambiguation can't be resolved in a straightforward manner... date of birth can be added"—not must or should be added—and extrapolating from them an elaborate and unnatural title that, while conforming to a narrow reading of these two sections of WP:NCP, goes against everything else at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. If that's not "I don't agree with the convention, so I'm going to quote from something I do agree with", then I don't know what is.
At the top of WP:NCP is a banner saying that the guideline "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Surely common sense must support the view that this exception to WP:MIDDLES is probably the least bad of the options available, while the proposed title is, as User:BrownHairedGirl so well describes it, "like some sort of parody of Wikpedia naming conventions". Opera hat (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edward Clive (British Army general). As argued above, this subject seems to be very rarely referred to with the middle name.[1] There's little risk of confusion with other Edward Clives, and what confusion may exist can be handled by adding a hat note.--Cúchullain t/c 19:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Edward Clive (British Army general). Best of both worlds – it avoids the unnecessarily long title in the proposal and it also avoids the rarely used middle name. Anyone searching for the guy is more likely to know his rank than his exact year of birth or middle name, so this title best suits readers. It hits four of the five naming criteria (recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness) and only misses out on consistency, which is not the be-all and end-all. Jenks24 (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. We should not be disambiguating with middle names unless they are commonly used in reliable sources. Descriptive and accurate parenthetic disambiguation is far preferable to misleading users into thinking the middle name is part of the subject commonly used name. Perhaps there is a more succinct and still accurate and sufficient distinguishing disambiguation that would be even better, but the proposed title never-the-less meets WP:CRITERIA and follows conventions better than the current title. --В²C ☎ 20:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Born2cycle: Any opinion on Edward Clive (British Army general)? It felt to me like the consensus was trending that way, but your support of the original proposal I think means there is a greater likelihood this could be closed as no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no objection to Edward Clive (British Army general). It appears to meet WP:CRITERIA even better than the proposed title. Both are better than the current title. --В²C ☎ 01:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • While we're at it, why not Edward Clive (general) since he's the only Edward Clive that was a general? So general alone should be sufficient disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 01:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Possible. However, he was also a politician, a Member of Parliament for just two years. Also, he was a colonel of the now-inactive Regiment. George Ho (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that for British servicemen we always include the name of the service. Usually this is "British Army officer". Personally I don't think that would be a bad choice, as the other one wasn't a career officer and is better known by his title in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Brigadier General in Cyprus, 1885[edit]

Presumably the Brigade of Guards at Cyprus in July 1885 were the 3rd Bn Grenadier Guards, 1st Bn Coldstream Guards and 2nd Bn Scots Guards, who had taken part in the Suakin Expedition. Opera hat (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Clive_(British_Army_officer)&oldid=1196460408"