Talk:Neville Chamberlain (police officer)

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.

Moved to Neville Chamberlain (police officer), as the least objectionable option. There is a clear consensus that the current title is problematic, and multiple suggestions that this would be an acceptable alternative. BD2412 T 17:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Necrothesp and Nigej: You have already participated in the requested move that I didn't initiate. I would like your thoughts here. Scolaire (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposals. Chamberlain was in the Army for 16 years (the fact that it was the Indian Army is stated in the article but doesn't need to be in the title) and was Chief Inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary for 16 years. That makes it difficult to decide on a disambiguator. I propose the following options: Neville Chamberlain (army officer), Neville Chamberlain (police officer), Neville Chamberlain (army and police officer), or simply Neville Chamberlain (officer). Scolaire (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Chamberlain was an officer in the Indian Army. See Category:British Indian Army officers, and particularly Category:British Indian Army generals, to show this is the usual disambiguator. It is intended to mean that he was an officer in the Indian Army, but could equally mean that he was an Indian who was an army officer. That's why it's Indian Army officer (i.e. an officer in the Indian Army) and not Indian army officer (i.e. an Indian who is an army officer) - case is important here. Note that the Indian Army and the British Army were completely separate organisations, although many do not seem to realise this; it is therefore completely inappropriate to describe an Indian Army officer as a British Army officer. I would also accept Neville Chamberlain (police officer) as this was his highest-profile role (and the one for which he was knighted), although he spent longer in the Indian Army than anywhere else (actually, he was in the army for 28 years, not 16, the first couple in the British Army, as was standard practice for potential Indian Army officers, and the rest in the Indian Army). But none of the other options given are appropriate or usual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The average Wikipedia reader does not study the capitalisation of an article title in order to devine its subject. Case may be important in a semantic argument, but the reader is not looking for semantic arguments when he/she looks at an article title. In any case, "Indian Army" is excessive detail.
    WP:NCDAB states that "The word or phrase in parentheses should be...the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) that includes the topic." Thus Neville Chamberlain (footballer), not Neville Chamberlain (English League footballer). --Scolaire (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • So what you are actually proposing is a title which goes against the longstanding disambiguation practices of Indian Army (or indeed British Army) officers? Just for this one man? No, sorry, don't get the value of that. Consistency is important. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is this another "longstanding disambiguation practice" which is practiced almost exclusively by yourself, or an established community convention which has widespread consensus? If the latter, can you link me to where the consensus was established? Scolaire (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, because it was established before I came along and consensus does not have to be written to be consensus. Consensus is also established when it is a longstanding practice which is widely followed and not generally challenged. To be clear, we have been disambiguating using "British Army officer" pretty much since the beginning of Wikipedia (before I started doing it). We started using "Indian Army officer" for consistency and because many editors (such as yourself) obviously did not realise that the British Army and Indian Army were entirely separate organisations and (like yourself) classified Indian Army officers as British Army officers. It's possible (I really do not know) that I was the first to use "Indian Army officer" as a disambiguator, but only becuse the consensus was already in existence for British Army officers and for consistency and clarity it made perfect sense. I assume you have heard the old maxim "if it ain't broke, don't fix it..."? Because this has worked perfectly well for many years and I really see no value in a couple of editors coming along and suggesting it should be changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looking through the London Gazette entries none of them come under the Indian Army section. He was commissioned into the 11 foot which was a line regiment of the British Army and up until 1895 the Indian Army did not formally exist. I can see no proof that he transferred from the British Army to the Indian Army he had a staff appointment so from what I can gather would not have had to transfer. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commissioned as an India Cadet into the 11th Foot. Promoted captain in the Bengal Staff Corps (this means in the Bengal Army - the three presidency armies together were even at this time generally referred to as the Indian Army). Brevet Colonel in the Indian Staff Corps. Appointed CB as a Lt Col (Brevet Colonel) in the Indian Staff Corps. I should point out that Indian Army officers were usually gazetted to the Indian (or Bengal, Madras or Bombay) Staff Corps instead of a particular regiment. This does not mean they held staff appointments. This is explained in our article on the British Indian Army. He was very clearly an officer in the Indian Army. It was usual practice for a potential Indian Army officer to first spend a couple of years in a British regiment before formally transferring to the Indian Army, hence his initial commission in the 11th Foot (but actually specified in the LG as an "India Cadet"). -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Necrothesp what do you mean by "to show this is the usual disambiguator"? Arnkellow (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the standard disambiguator for officers of the Indian Army is very clearly "Indian Army officer", not one of those suggested by Scolaire! -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you dont just mean that it is the "standard disambiguator" on all the articles you moved to "(Indian Army officer)"?[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] and I don't know how many others. Scolaire (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't start the practice. I merely follow it. I should point out that there are hundreds of people disambiguated by "British Army officer", "Royal Navy officer" and "RAF officer", which you presumably also object to on the same basis? It is much better to have a consistent naming system for people in the same organisation, and we currently have one that works very well. I see no value whatsoever in trying to undermine it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Scolaire has made the a point that I too spotted, I have only came across one article that says Wwwww Mmmmm (Indian Army officer) that you didn't move. While as you point out hundreds of article are disambiguated by similar, it is because (a) that's is what they are most noted for, or (b) only noted for. The other problem, at a larger scale, is if I type in Indian Army I get, the Indian Army, or the Indian National Army if you like. Not the British Indian Army. While the disambiguater for the former officers is Wwww Mmmm (Indian National Army officer). The later should be Wwww Mmmm (British Indian Army). Arnkellow (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem there is that it wasn't ever called the British Indian Army. It was only ever called the Indian Army! "British Indian Army" is merely a convenience to refer to the pre-1947 army as opposed to the post-1947 army and completely unnecessary for use in a disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • So it's important to say "British Indian Army" in articles and in category headings because it was the British Indian Army, but it's important not to say "British Indian Army" in the title because it wasn't the British Indian Army? This argument is getting ever more tortuous. Scolaire (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not at all. We say "he was a British Indian Army officer" to mean he was a "British officer in the Indian Army" (which would also be fine). But pre-1947 we only ever need to refer to the Indian Army, as there was only one. Obviously in categories we say "British Indian Army" to distinguish it from the post-1947 Indian Army. That's why we have Category:Indian Army generals of World War I and Category:Indian Army generals of World War II, whereas the parent is Category:British Indian Army generals. During the World Wars it's patently obvious that they were generals in the British Indian Army, as that was the only Indian Army (other than the Indian National Army, which was an unofficial Japanese puppet organisation). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, From a practical point of view, we ought to distinguish between him and his uncle
  N. B. Chamberlain. Currently Neville Chamberlain (disambiguation) has "Sir Neville Bowles Chamberlain (1820–1902), British soldier" and "Sir Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain (1856–1944), British soldier, inventor of snooker". Nigej (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Neville Bowles Chamberlain does not have a disambiguator in the title. I don't know how you would distinguish this Neville Chamberlain in the title, other than "Neville Chamberlain (not his uncle Neville Bowles Chamberlain)". There should of course be a hatnote in the article, but that is a separate question. Scolaire (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We may need to rename Neville Bowles Chamberlain too. Perhaps the Neville Chamberlain (yyyy, born xxxx) style is a possibility, although in this case you'd think two could be distinguished by their different careers. Nigej (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think full name might be the best disambiguator in this case. I loathe the Name (___, born xxx) style. (t · c) buidhe 17:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal loathing is not really the point, given it is the usual way of disambiguating, whereas full name is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. To avoid all of this somewhat pointless debate, may I suggest Neville Chamberlain (police officer). Although his longest career was in the Indian Army, he's best-known as Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, for which post he was knighted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Neville Chamberlain (police officer)" per Necrothesp's rationale above. Scolaire (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2020 (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.