Talk:Alan Rose (public servant)
Latest comment: 5 days ago by Necrothesp in topic Requested move 29 October 2024
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 29 October 2024
edit
 | It has been proposed in this section that Alan Rose (public servant) be renamed and moved to Alan Rose (Australian public servant). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Alan Rose (public servant) → Alan Rose (Australian public servant) – WP:AT ambiguous disambiguation is a bad idea wP:PRECISE multiple public servants named Alan Rose with articles on Wikipedia, particularly, the nominal primary topic is a British judge, Alan Rose; The article should be moved without leaving a redirect behind, as there's no disambiguation page for "Alan Rose" to repoint it to. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Moved from WP:RMTR as a contested speedy request:
- This title is fine as it is; unless you instead want a DAB out of "Alan Rose"! Intrisit (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I was going to say this would be fine as is too. "Public servant" appears to have a fairly narrow meaning of someone working in the civil service, so this isn't ambiguous as far as I can see, at least with the judge. The fact that the OP suggested suppressing the redirect altogether tells us that this is already the correct title anyway, otherwise it would redirect somewhere. — Amakuru (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- No, if we kept the redirect, it would have to redirect to the judge. Judges are public servants, thus this is a bad disambiguation. Judges are employed by the government, thus public employees, thus public servants. Judges are not private sector workers. This judge was part of the colonial service, a governmental sector of the British Empire. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I was going to say this would be fine as is too. "Public servant" appears to have a fairly narrow meaning of someone working in the civil service, so this isn't ambiguous as far as I can see, at least with the judge. The fact that the OP suggested suppressing the redirect altogether tells us that this is already the correct title anyway, otherwise it would redirect somewhere. — Amakuru (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- This title is fine as it is; unless you instead want a DAB out of "Alan Rose"! Intrisit (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Please add opinions with rationales below this line:
- Support. Judges are indeed public servants. Whilst the Public Service is the Australian term for what elsewhere is called the Civil Service, that doesn't mean "public servant" as used in Australia supersedes the common usage of the term elsewhere in the world, where it tends to be a generic term for any person who serves in an official appointment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comment above. A judge is not regarded as a public servant (which is basically a synonym for "civil servant") by most definitions, therefore the present disambiguation is perfectly fine. This is a solution looking for a problem. — Amakuru (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- In most countries, civil servants are a subset of public servants, as I stated above, and the terms are most certainly not synonymous. Judges are not civil servants but they are public servants. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Relist comment - There are two POVs here - one in which "public servant" encompasses judges, and the other in which it doesn't. What do people support? FOARP (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - I find myself in the middle as to the judge=public servant debate - I believe a judge can logically be classified as such, but also that the title of judge is itself specific enough to stand on its own - given the choice between the titles "judge" and "public servant", most individuals (and likely most sources discussing them) will choose to refer to them as "judge" unless they have spent a significant amount of time committing to other work that would be classified as public service - it seems that an individual's "most noteworthy" title would be the predominant disambiguation we would use. For that reason, I believe the current dab is sufficient, although I will note that I do slightly favor overprecision in some cases (I don't see a lot of harm in us calling him an "Australian" public servant, but our policy and apparently the latest trend is to make titles as concise as possible, so that's beside the point) ASUKITE 15:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)