Talk:William Smith (judge, born 1728)

Merge
The listed birth and death dates for William Smith Jr. and William Smith (chief justice) are slightly different, but it is clear from the body of both articles that they are the same person. As William Smith Jr is the newer article, it should be merged into William Smith (chief justice). Vycl1994 (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, you are right. I just accepted the article at AfC, but the redirect is clear, and I'll make the change., feel free to contribute to the other article! Smmurphy(Talk) 16:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've removed the merge template from the top of the article. Vycl1994 (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 February 2022

 * 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: William Smith (chief justice) moved to William Smith (judge, born 1728), and William Smith (New York judge) moved to William Smith (judge, born 1697).

(The latter move is arguably out-of-process per WP:RMCI, but I contend that moving from an ambiguous disambiguator to an unambiguous one is safely uncontroversial. If anyone disagrees, please let me know.)

Hats off to all participants for making this an effective collaborative discussion. (non-admin closure) Colin M (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

William Smith (chief justice) → William Smith (Quebec judge) – Insufficient disambiguation against William James Smith (chief justice of Cyprus, British Guiana and the Transvaal), and William Nathan Harrell Smith (chief justice of North Carolina); move this article and point this to William Smith. BD2412 T 21:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per the nomination -- the proposed move would resolve the incomplete disambiguation here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It also looks like William "Tangier" Smith was a Chief Justice of New York -- seems like they need some originality, but also that, with three William Smith's who were also chief justices, the current disambiguator needs to be fixed. It's not elegant, but I wouldn't necessarily hate (New York and Quebec judge), if we decide it absolutely must include NY as well. --Yaksar (let's chat) 08:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the below, I'm also fine with the suggestion by Necrothesp, which, while wordy, resolves the current name's total failure to meet our disambigation requirements on multiple fronts. Wordy is better than useless!--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose as proposed. He was at least as notable for his ties to New York, so mentioning only Quebec is misleading. Some other title might be acceptable, but this is more easily solved by just adding the other two justices directly to the hatnote. Station1 (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good point! I will try to think of some alternatives, or see if others have any. That being said, the proposed title is still better than the current situation -- after all the main purpose of the disambiguator is to disambiguate, not just describe, and in that mission it currently completely fails given there are other chief justices. And in similar situations (where say, we have someone who is an director and novelist, but their disambiguation is just (director), our priority is to have a disambiguator, and not necessarily a perfect descriptor.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So-called partial disambiguation (of titles) isn't really a problem in cases like this, since all three titles are unique and disambiguation (of topics) can be "completed" by use of hatnotes. Especially since these all have low views,|William_James_Smith|William_Nathan_Harrell_Smith the chances of someone landing on this article by mistake are exceedingly low. William Nathan Harrell Smith averages one view per day and was also notable for other things, so the chances of someone searching for him at this title are near zero. William James Smith was certainly a chief justice, so chances someone is looking for him at this title are very slightly higher, but a direct hatnote pointing to him is easier for readers to use than making them hunt for him on the William Smith dab page. Partial disambiguation is mostly a problem where you have multiple articles that would otherwise need identical titles that people are likely to search for, like songs. There may well be a better qualifier for this article's title, but I don't think a change is mandatory or even beneficial to most readers. Station1 (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree it's definitely not an urgent problem given the low numbers, but low page views don't change the main purpose of a disambiguation, which is to disambiguate. It's far more problematic to have a disambiguator that completely fails at its primary purpose than to have one that only describes one of the multiple roles the subject is best known for.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the main purpose of a parenthetical disambiguator in an article title is to provide for a unique title, simply because it's technically impossible for WP to have a dozen articles all titled William Smith. Both the current title and the proposed title do that, so it's only a question of picking the best one, and IMO the more inclusive "chief justice" is better than the less inclusive "Quebec judge", although neither is ideal. If the descriptor does not completely disambiguate topics, as opposed to titles, that's not a problem because we can just add a hatnote to complete the job. Station1 (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well some titles like South Rona use natural disambiguation (Rona is unavailable), some use comma disambiguation like Windsor, Berkshire (Windsor is unavailable) and some use bracket dismbiguation like Mercury (planet) (Mercury) is unavailable. Generally when we use the last 2 we should be unambiguous as generally its ridiculous to have a qualified title that is still ambiguous as a qualified title should be unique rather than still be ambiguous.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, generally. But couldn't "Windsor, Berkshire" also refer to Old Windsor, which used be named Windsor? Old Windsor is disambiguated not even with a hatnote, but not until the Etymology section in the body of the article. Or could it not possibly refer, however rarely, to Windsor (UK Parliament constituency), which is disambiguated in the Politics section even further down the article? I don't think we need to change Windsor, Berkshire's title for those extreme cases where someone might be looking for something else, just because it's technically not an absolutely unique topic. Station1 (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case the 1st hasn't been called "Windsor" for a long time and the 2nd is a sub topic of the town. I think this generally applies when you have substantially unrelated meanings we should generally not have partial bracket or comma dissambiguation (unless the brackets or commas are natural disambiguation) however some may have similar names or potentially confusing like Holton, Suffolk (in East Suffolk district and sometimes called "Holton St Peter") and Holton, Suffolk which would likely have just been "Holton" or Tree (set theory) v Tree (descriptive set theory).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For the same reasons, we probably should move William Smith (New York judge) as well, since the disambiguator is failing to address the ambiguity.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that move also. BD2412  T 05:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support this one gets 102 views compared with 35 for Nathan Harrell and 34 for James[|William_James_Smith|William_Nathan_Harrell_Smith]. I agree with Station1 that the proposed title isn't appropriate though and welcome suggestions for a better title but my point support is that the current title is ambiguous. Would William Smith (1728–1793) or William Smith (died 1793) work? Note that William Smith (Maryland politician) was also born in 1728 so birth date wouldn't work.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support William Smith (judge, born 1728), which removes any national affiliations but still serves to disambiguate him. And move William Smith (New York judge) to William Smith (judge, born 1697). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly preferable to the proposal as more neutral, but we'd still need hatnotes on them, in this case to the dab page. Although those titles are technically unambiguous, as a practical matter almost no one would know, based solely on their birth dates, which of the dozen or more judges named William Smith listed on the dab page is being referred to. "Chief justice" and "New York judge" actually narrow the possibilities to a greater degree, for most readers. Station1 (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Given someone searching for a judge called William Smith would almost certainly arrive at the dabpage first, I see no problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. For the same reason, I see no problem with the current title. Station1 (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't unambiguously disambiguate, which is what a disambiguator is supposed to do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)