Talk:William Sidney Smith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792–1815)

[edit] Naming

I don't mind but I do think that he should be listed under Sidney Smith as the prime name as that is what most people know him as. I wrote pretty well all of this article and I didn't realise his name was William Sidney Smith until I was well into the rresearch. The other article is basically Britannica 1911 and has virtually no information that is not already on this page. Dabbler 02:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming confusion

-- Comment -- Please excuse any offense I may be committing; I am new to contributing and have not absorbed what looks to be a daunting amount of information on procedure and protocol.

My comment is about a point of confusion I am having reading this article. It is not clear to me at what point the topic moves from John Spencer Smith, back to Sir Sidney. On my first reading I went several paragraphs before I came to the conlusion it had somewhere migrated back, but the continual use of the singular appellation "Smith" does not help in identifying where this happens.

On a 2nd reading (the locaton follows this comment) I began to suspect that John Spencer is only discussed for a single sentence, which if I may, begs the question, why include it at all; however I think it would be helpful, if not more respectful to replace some of the following "Smith recruited, Smith arrived, Smith had, etc. etc." with Sir Sidney, possibly a more common British form. --Vernoncoffee (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)