Talk:John Raymond Broadbent (major general)

Untitled
There are 2 people called John Raymond Broadbent in the Australian Military. The first John Raymond Broadbent was born in 1893 in Victoria and is the subject of an article. He was awarded a CBE. The second one I had sought to enter as John Raymond* Broadbent (which is the way that the AWM distinguishes between them. This one picked up a DSO in 1944 and CBE in 1967. He finished as Commander 2 Div with the rank of Major General. It would be good to see both listed if you can work out how. For confirmation see the following link to the Australian War Memorial where the Honours and Awards made to each can be verified: http://www.awm.gov.au/honours/honours/results.asp?fn=broadbent&sn=broadbent&c=W2

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: move
 * John Raymond Broadbent (1914-2006) → John Raymond Broadbent (Major General)
 * John Raymond Broadbent (1893-1972) → John Raymond Broadbent (Quartermaster)

The moves were performed by. See below. Cunard (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

John Raymond Broadbent (1914-2006) → John Raymond Broadbent (1914–2006) — year ranges use an endash per WP:DATE. — Rjwilmsi  19:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 *  Support  - Surely this is uncontroversial? Pdfpdf (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose as MOScruft. It would be better to find out their relationship and disambiguate by that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the MOS calls anywhere for date ranges to be used as qualifiers (though if I am wrong, this RM is uncontroversial and should be enacted). So we need another solution. I think using army titles as qualifiers for this article and John Raymond Broadbent (1893–1972) is the correct course of action. If the closer agrees, he will need to move this article and the one I just listed. This article would have (Major General) as the qualifier, and Broadbent 1893–1972 would have (Brigadier). Another option would be to attach Major General and Brigadier before John Raymond Broadbent in each article. This is more elegant and the optimal solution in my mind, but I do not know if the MOS says anything about such titles. ÷seresin 09:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything MOS says about article titles is out of line; article titles are decided by our naming conventions. This is just as well, since most of MOS is neither useful nor consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I support "(1914-2006)" being changed. I think changing to (Brigadier) and (Major General) is a better option than "(1914&endash2006)". If it's restricted to a choice between "(1914-2006)" and "(1914&endash2006)", (although I personally prefer "(1914-2006)"), it seems that "the standard" has become "(1914&endash2006)". Perhaps we need a revised proposal? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support there are few other options for disambiguation apart from dates, but I would support say "Infantry officer" and "Quartermaster", which describes their military roles. Ranks are unwise because they were both Brigadiers at some point. DrKiernan (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
John Raymond Broadbent (1914-2006) → John Raymond Broadbent (Major General) - Better disambiguator. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Fine by me. Rjwilmsi  14:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(Lack of) Action
If there are no objections in the next 48 hours, someone will move: --Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * John Raymond Broadbent (1914-2006) → John Raymond Broadbent (Major General)
 * John Raymond Broadbent (1893-1972) → John Raymond Broadbent (Brigadier)
 * Oppose They were both brigadiers at some point. DrKiernan (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't follow your logic. Only one of them was a Major General. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support for the younger; Oppose for the elder Yes, fine so Major General can be used, but they were both brigadiers: the elder in 1945 and the younger in 1956–8, so that shouldn't be used. DrKiernan (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Copied from Talk:John Raymond Broadbent (1893–1972)
 * Oppose They were both brigadiers at some point in their careers. Use either dates or professions, i.e. "Infantry officer", "Quartermaster". DrKiernan (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't follow your logic about both Brigadiers; only one of them was a Major General. However, I can see merit in using profession. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, how about "Major General" and "Quartermaster"? DrKiernan (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Another proposal
Pdfpdf (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC) on behalf of User:DrKiernan
 * John Raymond Broadbent (1914-2006) → John Raymond Broadbent (Major General)
 * John Raymond Broadbent (1893-1972) → John Raymond Broadbent (Quartermaster)
 * Support - Yeah. Anything relevant that isn't a date that identifies them AND distinguishes between them. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine - especially since the QM corps (is it a corps in Oz?) seems to be a defining characteristic of the elder's career.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Rjwilmsi  10:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Done
I have moved: And more tediously, I have fixed the double redirects. According to Requested moves/Closing instructions, it's probably best if an admin closes this.
 * John Raymond Broadbent (1914-2006) → John Raymond Broadbent (Major General)
 * John Raymond Broadbent (1893-1972) → John Raymond Broadbent (Quartermaster)

"Game, set and match. Thank you linesmen. Thank you ballboys." --Pdfpdf (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A discussion well done. ÷seresin 17:43, 11 January 2010 (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.