Talk:Joseph Smith (art collector)

A fact from Joseph Smith (art collector) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 April 2008, and was viewed approximately 706 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the acquisitions of Joseph Smith, British consul in Venice, formed the basis of the drawings collection in the Royal Collection and the "King's Library" of George III at the British Library?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/April.

Wikipedia

Untitled[edit]

I did not title this article Joseph Smith (1682-1770) by chance. Where a name needs disambiguating in an article title, this is the grown-ups' way to do it. --Wetman (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the current ODNB pushes his birth date back as a far as 1673/4, so this perhaps needs some revision? I've found the original London Gazette entry for appointment as consul which is dated 23 March 1743, his successor was appointed in January 1761, so an end date of 1760 still seems right. David Underdown (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Joseph Smith (c. 1673/74-1770) would make a fine article title, IMO. Thanks for working your findings right in. --Wetman (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just occurred to me that since the appointment as Consul was before 1752, the date given in the Gazette will be Old style - which explains why the ODNB says he was appointed in 1744. David Underdown (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless I have childishly added a redirect from "Consul Smith". It might be worth mentioning (when sorted out) that his appointment as consul was at about the age of 70. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lemma: According to the birthday (approx. 1674) given by Frances Vivian I titled the german Version de:Joseph Smith (Konsul), so Joseph Smith (Consul) could be an way avoiding the given uncertainties. ---Goesseln (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal disambiguation, rarely practiced at Wikipedia, gives the dates in parentheses.--Wetman (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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: Page moved. As there is no opposition, and it seems that the user who chose the current title is also happy with the proposed one, the move seems to be uncontroversial. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith (1682–1770) → Joseph Smith (art collector) – On Wikipedia, birth dates are a last resort for disambiguation, and death dates are not recommended at all. The standard method of disambiguation is by qualitative descriptor. As there are no other Wikipedia articles about art collectors named Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith (art collector) is a better title for this article. Neelix (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oops! I hadn't noticed there was an RM here when I moved it, having come to my attention based on another Joseph Smith RM. I moved to Joseph Smith (collector) based on John Henderson (collector), also in Category:English collectors, but looking through the more specific category of Category:English art collectors, it's clear that the (admittedly more descriptive) disambiguator you've proposed it also used. Pardon my disruption. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Smith (art collector). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]