Jump to content

Talk:Sydney Smith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sydney Smith likes Longhorn tea sets?

[edit]

Perhaps someone who knows more about the subject can enlighten me... The article says:

One quote of Sydney Smith's can be viewed on the wall of the main hallway in the Dallas Museum of Art in Dallas, Texas. The quote refers to Sydney's love for tea and compliments the Museum's tea set display nicely.

How would Smith (who died in 1845) know enough about the Dallas Museum of Art (founded 1903) that he would compliment its tea set? I doubt he even visited Texas!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.71.133 (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a spelling mistake I presume
Compliment – statement of praise
Complement - something that completes or perfects something else
I have corrected it. You could argue that the statement is POV, perhaps some people think it doesn't complement it - maybe the whole item should go?
Dorset100 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 February 2022

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: In this requested move there is substantial and well-argued support to move Sydney Smith to one of various alternative names that have been proposed. There is also substantial and well-argued dissent, and I cannot discern a consensus here.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Having just added another name to the disambiguation page (Sydney M. Smith, the longest-serving Chief Justice in the history of Mississippi), I don't believe that there is a primary topic out of the 20 article subjects sharing this surprisingly common name. Massviews analysis suggests that the base page name gets less than half of all views. BD2412 T 20:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Support per nom. There's no clear primary topic among the 20 notable individuals who share the name. The safest bet is to move the disambiguation page to the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. There doesn't appear to be a primary topic for this name. Egsan Bacon (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This one has averaged 41 views pd since 2015; none of the others I've looked at are anything like that high. On the figures given for 6 months he gets almost 50% (the others total just 1 higher on average), and is far larger than any single other. You might repeat the excercise over a longer period. Any move should be to Sydney Smith (wit), as that is what he's known for. Looks primary to me. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The standard for determining a primary topic by usage is that the subject is "more likely than all the other topics combined" to be the search target. Getting "almost 50%" is by definition below that threshold. BD2412 T 04:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You obviously haven't read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in a while. What it actually says is:
While Wikipedia has no single criterion for defining a primary topic, two major aspects that editors commonly consider are these:
  • A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
  • A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
You could easily redo your ngram in a month or two and find this Sydney over that threshold. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you account for the number of readers coming to "Sydney Smith" because they are actually looking for some other Sydney Smith (or perhaps even a Sidney Smith)? The disambiguation page gets a few hits every day. If we were talking about a page already at "Sydney Smith (cleric)" or "Sydney Smith (wit)", and it was getting those numbers of views, it would be a much clearer case than a page already occupying the base page name, and likely getting erroneous hits. As for the threshold changing in a month, the number of people sharing this name in the encyclopedia is growing, not shrinking, so views are likely to become more diluted rather than less. BD2412 T 16:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how do you account for the effect of "random article" searches, which I imagine constitute the majority of hits on several truly, madly, deeply obscure figures here? I am confident this one meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and we are just causing trouble for readers if we make these moves. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you have an imagination, then. The distribution of views for the lower-level ones doesn't look particularly random, and they are no more likely to be the result of a random search than the article proposed to be moved here. BD2412 T 05:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the Rev Sydney Smith was famous before any of the others were born and remains a major figure in English cultural history. Not for nothing was his biography entitled "The Smith of Smiths". 45ossington (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boston, Lincolnshire existed for centuries before Boston. The most significant difference with these cases is that we have no reason to believe that any of these other people named "Sydney Smith" were named after this one. BD2412 T 05:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • A fair riposte, though my reference to the longevity of the Rev Sydney's fame was intended only as a point in his favour, not as an inference of propositional logic to be tested by counter-examples. Anyhoo, if you don't like that point, then how about this one: the article lists no fewer than eight full biographies of the man. How does that compare with, eg, the estimable Justice of the Supreme Court of Mississippi? 45ossington (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @45ossington: I'm not saying that the Rev Sydney is unimportant, or even that he is not the most important person with this name, just that he is not clearly more important than all other people with this name combined – also bearing in mind that "Sydney Smith" is phonetically identical to "Sidney Smith", so there will always be some amount of additional conflation there. BD2412 T 17:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • As pointed out above, that is not in fact the hard criterion for being primary. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • The phrase "more likely than all the other topics combined" comes straight from the rule you have quoted above. This article subject is not more likely than all the other topics combined, and the chances of that ever being the case are diminishing over time, as new articles sharing this common name are added to the page. BD2412 T 07:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • As clearly said in the quote above, this is NOT a rule but one of "two major aspects that editors commonly consider". If you want to make it a "rule", which I suspect you do, go and propose that there, and see how you get on! And the single view by which it fails to have the majority of views is statistically insignificant. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If moved (and I'm undecided on that) then it should be to Sydney Smith (priest) per the others in Category:19th-century English Anglican priests. "Cleric" is not generally used on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But he is wholly un-notable as a "priest" (a term most Anglican clerics of the C19th would have been alarmed by, but never mind). He is famous as a wit, as the short description accurately says: "Short description|English wit, writer, Anglican cleric (1771–1845)". Antonio Vivaldi was also a priest, to name but one. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The terminology for Anglican priests/ministers/clergymen is always a little complex, as different individuals prefer(red) different designations, but that is the name we use for the category and other people in it. I would, however, be happy with "wit", but definitely not with "cleric" (or the equally bad "divine"). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Johnbod. The cleric has quite a hefty lead in page views over any of the other topics, whether or not he is over the 50% threshold, such that I think the status quo of him being the PTOPIC is reasonable. He lived long ago and has given his name to various things such as pubs, so I think it's fair to say he has long-term significance too.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I've just checked again and I think we should be including Sidney Smith (Royal Navy officer) in the mix, as I've found numerous sources giving his name with the spelling "Sydney" (e.g. [1][2][3]) and the pub I mentioned was in fact named after him, rather than the cleric. So given that, I'll switch my !vote to support, and will add his name to the disambiguation page. He got 13,881 views in the period covered by the above ngram, so about twice as many as the cleric. Also noting that I support the original proposed disambiguator of "cleric", this is the commonly used term preferable to "priest" or "wit".  — Amakuru (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination; Paintspot Infez; Egsan Bacon; Crouch, Swale and Amakuru. There are 22 men listed upon the Sydney Smith (disambiguation) page, with no indication that the historical legacy of the 19th-century writer and clergyman looms so large as to dwarf the combined renown of the other 21 men. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 11:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is not really as a cleric that he is notable, but as a writer and essayist. Sydney Smith is one of the most influential forgers of British public opinion in the 19th Century and founding ideologue of the Whig Reform era. Certainly has more long-run significance than probably all others on that list put together. But I do admit it is a surprisingly long list. He may not be exactly a household name today, but he certainly used to be, and you will frequently find him name-dropped in any work that deals with the 19th Century Britain. Walrasiad (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney_Smith&oldid=1195733541"