Talk:George Clinton (Royal Navy officer)

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Basvossen in topic Name

Requested move

edit
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 make the move requested Mike Cline (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply



George Clinton (Royal Navy officer)George Clinton (naval officer)Relisted. Consensus seems to be to move. However the current name seems to match most of the exiting articles which are disambiguated. If there is no clear and convincing case for this change to go against the existing norm, then I would close as not moved. I think this should probably be closed and an RFC opened to discuss this across all of the articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC) There is no "standard dab" for British naval officers. If there was then every naval officer would have a dab. Disambiguaters are only as detailed as is "necessary to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided". Marcus Qwertyus 03:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Policy has more weight than the status quo. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." It is also more likely that some person a long time ago set up a template with redlinks to First Last (Royal Navy Officer) and it stuck. If there are two Royal Navy officers named Jack Smith and we give them three disambiguators, do we need give three disambiguators to every RNO? Marcus Qwertyus 04:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
There are two disambiguators in each case Marcus. Where are you getting three from? Are you confusing 'word' or 'term' for 'disambiguator'? Benea (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
I said if there are two Royal Navy officers named Jack Smith we would need three. Are we going to say then that now all articles that had two disambiguators now need three? Marcus Qwertyus 04:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
No, in fact that is a fairly common situation, and can be usually handled with dates, Thomas Fellowes (1778-1853) and Thomas Fellowes (1827-1923), James Richard Dacres (1749–1810) and James Richard Dacres (1788–1853), George Elliot (1784–1863) and George Elliot (1813–1901), etc, or dates and titles, William Hotham, 1st Baron Hotham and William Hotham (1772–1848). How would three disambiguators help if, as often happens, both subjects had the same rank? Both Fellowes were rear-admirals, both Dacres were vice-admirals and both Elliots were admirals. The current system uses a two level disambiguation. The service, and the commission. Your suggestion keeps it at a two-level stage. The service, and the commission. It is not changing the overall level of precision, in the way that John Smith (Canadian politician) would be a more precise term of John Smith (politician). And the hundreds of articles which use the structure cannot be just dismissed as being a limited consensus or the result of some hypothetical template. I'd say it looked more like long standing consensus on a naming convention, that extends beyond articles on Royal Navy officers to other branches, eg Henry Monckton (British Army officer), Harry Atkinson (RAF officer), etc. Benea (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2012 (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.


Sniper?

edit

This phrase appears in the 'Political intervention' section: "...he sniped the Dutch fur traders...".
I have not edited it because a) I did not want to change the meaning and b) I didn't understand it ! The only use for 'snipe' in this context that I can think of is if Clinton acted as a sniper against the Dutch; I don't think that was originally intended.

I have therefore not put the tick in the box as far as B-class grammar is concerned.

RASAM (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Name

edit

Not the inventor of P-Funk Basvossen (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply