Talk:Michael Seymour (Royal Navy officer, born 1802)

Untitled

from an old exhibition note: Third son of Rear-Admiral Sir Michael Seymour, Bart., No. 463 Born, 1802. Lieutenant, 1822. Commander, 1824. Captain, 1826. Commanded the Challenger on the South American Station, 1833, and till she was wrecked, near Concepcion, on igth May, 1835. Commodore Superintendent at Devonport. 1852. Captain of the Fleet in the Baltic and Rear-Admiral, 1854. K.C.B. and third in command in the Baltic, 1855. Commander-in-Chief in China, 1856-9, during the second Chinese war, including the action with the junk fleet in Fatshan Creek, and capture of Canton, 1857, and capture of the Taku P'orts, 1858. G.C.B., 1859. Vice-Admiral, 1860. Commander-in-Chief at Ports- mouth, 1863. Admiral, 1864. Vice-Admiral of the United Kingdom. Died, 1887. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs) 23:00, 12 June 2009

Requested move 20 May 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Michael Seymour (Royal Navy officer, 1802–1887). Clear consensus for the move, and a well-reasoned argument that the date range alone would not alleviate confusion. bd2412 T 18:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Michael Seymour (Royal Navy officer) → ? – The current disambiguator is highly ambiguous with his father Sir Michael Seymour, 1st Baronet (1768–1834), who was also an admiral of the Royal Navy. Possible new titles: Michael Seymour (1802–1887), Michael Seymour (Royal Navy officer, 1802–1887), Michael Seymour (Royal Navy officer, died 1887). --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Prefer Michael Seymour (1802-1887) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  I think I agree that using the dates would be the simplest option. However, per WP:DATERANGE we should use an enadsh (Michael Seymour (1802–1887)) rather than just a hyphen (as in Michael Seymour (1802-1887)). the hyphenated style should of course be created as a redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  Either way, I was just typing it with my keyboard -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Move to Michael Seymour (Royal Navy officer, 1802–1887). I think we do need the professional disambiguator, otherwise it will be even more confusing than it is at the moment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with Necrothesp on Michael Seymour (Royal Navy officer, 1802–1887). Searchers are, in my experience, likely to know the profession of the Michael Seymour they're looking for before they reach the article but unlikely to know the years of his birth and death. Jenks24 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• But searchers don't search just titles either manually or computationally. Instead, they will do, for example, a Wikipedia or Google search for "Michael Seymour Royal Navy", and that will yield a list of titles. If the born-death dates are given, they may assist greatly, even though the searcher did not use them to search. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree that they can be a useful reference point and that's why I support having them in this title. I just dislike having only birth/death dates, as I think it's far more likely a searcher will go "aha, that's the guy I'm looking for" when they see Michael Seymour (Royal Navy officer, 1802–1887) as opposed to just Michael Seymour (1802–1887), which could really be about any of the hundreds of Michael Seymours who lived in the 19th century. Jenks24 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support, per nom, any of the above, preferring Michael Seymour (Royal Navy, 1802–1887). With whatever dash should be used. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2015 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 27 July 2016

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: Not moved per WP:PRECISE. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Michael Seymour (Royal Navy officer, born 1802) → Michael Seymour (Royal Navy officer) – Should be moved back to the previous title. The year would only be needed if there was another biography with "Royal Navy officer" as the disambiguator, but there's not so it's redundant. See for example, George Elliot (Royal Navy officer, born 1784) and George Elliot (Royal Navy officer, born 1813). The previous proposer claimed the title was highly ambiguous because of his father, Sir Michael Seymour, 1st Baronet. I disagree because the only way someone can get to this article is by 1/ Clicking an existing wikilink or 2/ Selecting him at Michael Seymour, where his birth and death years are listed. So there's no way anyone can mistakenly get to this article thinking it's about a different officer. Spellcast (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I almost closed this as moved myself, but looking at the RM last year made me pause. Perhaps relist? Andrewa (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose (change of vote). On further reflection, we do need the disambiguator to be unambiguous, and this proposal fails that. Andrewa (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The reasons for the previous RM still stand. If we're using a parentheses disambiguator, that diambiguator should be unambiguous and satisfy WP:PRECISE. Just because the father isn't named at a "(Royal Navy officer)" type disambiguator, doesn't mean he isn't a contender for that name. This is similar to the case of Brian Kelly (English footballer) and Brian Kelly (American soccer). We could call them Brian Kelly (footballer) and Brian Kelly (soccer), since the disambiguators used are different (due to WP:ENGVAR reasons), but we don't do that, because neither disambiguator is actually precise enough.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh crap, late reply! OK I understand Amakuru's reasons, but I still think it goes against the part of WP:Precise, which although it says should be "precise enough to unambiguously define" the subject but right afterwards says "but no more precise than that". I think that latter part is where the disagreement lies and where there's room for argument. Also the next section WP:Naturaldis lists several disambiguation formats, including comma-separated and parenthetical. It says a combination of different formats are "exceptional" and in "most cases to be avoided" for conciseness, which I believe applies here. Yes there's another naval officer with the same name. But because of his peerage, the title is always going to be "Sir Michael Seymour, 1st Baronet", so there's de facto never going to be any contention for this disambiguator unless there's another non-peer naval officer, which there isn't. Let's be real: How many people do we honestly think have reached this article thinking it's about a different officer simply because the birth year wasn't in the title? I would bet zero. I doubt anyone actually types in the full title in the search bar. They either get to this article by selecting him in the disambiguation list or through an existing wikilink. Both of these paths leave no room for ambiguity. Spellcast (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sir Michael Seymour, 1st Baronet appears to have been a Royal Navy officer, and so the proposal fails WP:PRECISE. Titles should be precise. Being able to recover from a wrong page load a clicking is not good enough, Wikipedia should not be assumed to be a live-access online-only product. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2016 (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.

Artwork by Michael Seymour (1802-1887)

I added an artwork ascribed to him. Krok6kola (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)