Talk:John Talbot of Lacock

Requested move 12 October 2014

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: move the page to John Talbot of Lacock, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

---

John Talbot (Dragoon Guards) → John Talbot (died 1714) – Though Sir John Talbot was a serving army officer, he would seem to be at least as notable as an active Member of Parliament during the Restoration. WP:NCPDAB says that "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." The current disambiguator is inappropriate in any case, as the two regiments of Horse of which Talbot was colonel were not redesignated as Dragoon Guards until after his death. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Opera hat (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Prefer John Talbot (1630-1714) instead, as this format is widely used for people in resources outside of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia should not ignore the fact that such a format is widely used. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support John Talbot (died 1714), this is the standard WP dab, he is probably not best known for being a DG officer, but rather for being a MP for 27 years? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the unregistered user above, and think Wikipedia should use lifespans in cases like this, but I recognise that is not completely agreed upon. —innotata 03:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The statement above is not correct; using year spans for disambiguation is far from standard on Wikipedia, and the relevant guidelines state that the opposite is the case. According to the relevant guidelines, "years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators" because "readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it". This option is offered only as a last resort, when a more illustrative descriptor is not available, and even then, the years are not recommended to be used exclusively, but in conjunction with a qualifier; ie. "Name (qualifier, born YYYY)". "Dragoon Guards" is a perfectly valid disambiguator for this article, and even if it wasn't sufficient for disambiguation, the guidelines are clear that the death year (or birth and death years) should not be used independently. Neelix (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• "Dragoon Guards" is not "a perfectly valid disambiguator for this article": it's anachronistic. As stated above, Dragoon Guards did not exist in the British Army until after Talbot's death. Opera hat (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The task then is to find a better qualifier. How would you feel about John Talbot (brigadier general)? That was the highest rank he attained, and I don't see any other articles about people named John Talbot who also held that rank. Neelix (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That would certainly be better - although he only held the rank for a matter of weeks before resigning it in December 1688. But was Talbot really more notable as a soldier than as a Member of Parliament? I don't think so, and that's why I proposed the move based on the "no dominant qualifier" guideline (which does suggest the date of death alone as an alternative). Opera hat (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The article's level of coverage of Talbot's military career is at least as extensive as the coverage of his political career. It doesn't seem to me that he is more notable for his political career than for his military career, but even if he is, the difference doesn't seem so stark as to justify using as a disambiguator what the guidelines clearly point out to be a last resort (ie. the death year). Would you be opposed to the title John Talbot (brigadier general)? Neelix (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

He's hardly notable for his extremely brief service as a brigadier-general. If you're wanting to disambiguate based on his military career then John Talbot (army officer) would be preferable: John Talbot (soldier) would be more likely to refer to John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury. But what about John Talbot (of Lacock), as with John Morgan (of Rhiwpera), Henry Mildmay (of Graces) and Henry Bertie (of Weston-on-the-Green)? Opera hat (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

John Talbot (army officer) looks like a good option to me. I don't see justification in the guidelines for the "of x" disambiguators, unless we drop the brackets and go with John Talbot of Lacock, which a Google Books search reveals is a way that he is sometimes referred to. Would you be satisfied with either of these two options? Neelix (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. :) Opera hat (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Another army officer called John Talbot was John Chetwynd-Talbot, 21st Earl of Shrewsbury who was a captain in the Royal Artillery during the Second World War, but I think it's pretty unlikely the two would ever be confused. Opera hat (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.