Talk:John Smith (Ohio politician, died 1824)

Requested move

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: no consensus, so moved by default to John Smith (Ohio Senator). There is no consensus here for any title, so the result defaults to the status quo ante, which is John Smith (Ohio Senator). That was the stable title until a WP:BOLD move on Jan 9 was reverted and then reinstated. (Per WP:BRD, after the first move was reverted, it should not have been moved again without prior discussion).
In this discussion, several editors expressed concern about the ambiguity of "Ohio Senator" (John Quincy Smith was an Ohio state Senator), while others asserted that "Ohio Senator" will conventionally be read as meaning a federal senator. It might be helpful to have a central discussion somewhere to clarify that point. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

---

John Smith (United States Senator from Ohio) → John Smith (Ohio politician, born 1735) – This is a more typical way of disambiguating a title, per WP:NCP. The more concise John Smith (Ohio politician) is ambiguous with John Quincy Smith. Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC) BDD (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• John Smith (1735-1824) ? The other one is John Smith (1824-1901) (as a redirect) -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This page was at John Smith (Ohio senator) until it was moved, without discussion, two weeks ago. Per WP:BRD, I will be reverting that move for its own discussion unless there is a consensus here for a different title. However, I think it is generally understood that an Ohio senator is a member of the United States Senate from Ohio, and that a member of the state senate would be titled "Ohio state senator". They are different jobs with different titles. bd2412 T 18:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not sufficiently better, not convinced, but open to changing my mind. Generally support a more widely consistent convention. There is need for followup at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)/Archive_7#RFC-birth_date_format_conformity_when_used_to_disambiguate. I think my statement there would be in support of John Smith (1735–1824, politician). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  Are there two notable people named John Smith who were born in 1735? bd2412 T 16:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  I think a descriptor is preferred to a date of birth usually.Roseohioresident (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• John Smith (cricketer, born 1835). The descriptors/occupations offered are awkward. Does BD2412 mean that the death year is unwanted. How about John Smith (politician, born 1835)? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• John Smith (Ohio Senator) – move it back to the longstanding stable title. One should always assume that a [state name] Senator is a federal senator, unless qualified as [state name] State Senator. However, Ohio State Senate is unnecessary because there is no Ohio Federal Senate. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Hmmm. – I see there has also been recent move activity at John Smith (New York politician born 1752). For those who think that the original title was too ambiguous, then John Smith (Senator for Ohio) works for me too. (United States) is unnecessary as it is common knowledge that Ohio is one of the 50 states. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• George Bush (Texas politician, born 1946). See how silly—or disrespectful—that sounds? In general, I think a US Senator would be primary topic over another politician who never held a federal- or statewide-level office. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It is not known that he was born in 1735: his birth date is unknown. The disambiguator can probably be shortened to "Senator from/for Ohio" without adding ambiguity. DrKay (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer "for" because it clearly implies that the Senator represents the state in the US Senate. One could have used Barack Obama (Senator from Hawaii) to disambiguate his from his father, and be half right.

Standard usage among American political scientists never considers "from" to designate the birthplace of a person, only the locality he represents. I'm not sure why this is; from the founding of the Republic, people have represented constituencies far removed from their birthplace, so perhaps that's the reason. Xoloz (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• • And just mentioning a common form the press uses: John Smith (Senator, D–Ohio). "D" being an abbreviation for Democratic-Republican. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

One shouldn't abbreviate Democratic-Republican with a simple "D", as that is an abbreviation for the modern Democratic Party (United States), the descendant of the Democratic-Republican Party after the era of Andrew Jackson. The two parties, Democratic-Republican and Democratic, have different WP articles for very good reasons. In textbooks, the abbreviation "D-R" is occasionally used, though I would dispense with the abbreviation altogether as anachronistic for the earlier era. Xoloz (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The suggested title is not substantially clearer. I would support reversion to the title from which this article was recently moved. Xoloz (talk) 17:32, 13 February 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.

Requested move 16 September 2018

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: Moved to John Smith (Ohio politician, died 1824)  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

---

John Smith (Ohio Senator) → John Smith (U.S. senator, died 1824) – or John Smith (U.S. senator from Ohio). Per MOS:JOBTITLES, we shouldn't have "Ohio Senator" with an uppercase "S". The title is also confusing about whether he was a state senator or a United States senator. His birth date is unknown. He is not the only John Smith that was a U.S. senator – see John Smith (New York politician, born 1752). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Prefer the first over the second as the second is confusing with John Quincy Smith (Ohio senator). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support John Smith (U.S. senator, died 1824) as the best available option. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support "...died 1824" per above. A few editors in the last RM had issues with the current name. ONR (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support "(U.S. senator, died 1824)". Nominator is exactly correct that the existing title is ambiguous as to whether he served in the state senate of Ohio, or represented Ohio in the United States Senate. Years of life should only be used in an article title as a last resort — but between the ambiguity of "Ohio Senator" and the John Quincy Smith problem, we're in "last resort" territory here. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support ...died 1824: per Bearcat. DrKay (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support some move; the (died 1824) disambiguation appears to be necessary (as his birth date is uncertain, and there are multiple senators from Ohio of this name). Beyond John Smith (U.S. senator, died 1824), I'd also consider John Smith (Ohio politician, died 1824) here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I (the original proposer) support the alternative proposal of John Smith (Ohio politician, died 1824). It seems more in line with Wikipedia naming conventions. As I understand it, we generally prefer "politician" rather than a role-specific term. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2018 (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.