Jump to content

Talk:Dick Smith (businessman): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Ordering: Reply to Nil Einne
Line 40: Line 40:


:I agree. I am Australian and I just read this article for the first time. The aviation stuff should be after the electronics stuff. Chances are his electronics business financed the aviation. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]])
:I agree. I am Australian and I just read this article for the first time. The aviation stuff should be after the electronics stuff. Chances are his electronics business financed the aviation. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]])

::Good one Nil Einne! I agree. I have moved the ''Business'' section higher in the article, above ''Aviation''. What do you think? It might need some fine tuning now. [[User:Dolphin51|Dolphin51]] ([[User talk:Dolphin51|talk]]) 11:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:38, 21 March 2010


First solo helicopter flight around the world

Someone wanted a citation. --jmb 00:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of significance

The Bell Jetranger III helicopter, Dick Smith Australian Explorer, was flown by Australian businessman and adventurer Dick Smith on the first solo circumnavigation of the world in a rotary wing aircraft in 1982/3. The flight was also the first solo helicopter flight across the Atlantic Ocean and the first solo flight from the U.S.A. to Australia by helicopter. [1]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Per WP:DISAMBIGUATION, I do not believe this Dick Smith constitutes a primary topic. I believe this content should be moved to Dick Smith (entrepreneur) and this page be made redirect to Dick Smith (disambiguation). Comments? -Verdatum (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not averse to this, and I've created Dick Smith (entrepreneur) as a redirect to Dick Smith. However, of the three other people named Dick Smith, all of their articles are currently stubs. I submit this as evidence that people who search for "Dick Smith" are almost always looking for this person at the moment. As such, I think that a move is premature. I'm happy to go with the majority if other people disagree, though. -- De Guerre (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with De Guerre that this Dick Smith is the most notable and should be directly linked until others are more prominent. Lympathy (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm fine with this for the time being. The Dick Smith (makeup artist) article needs to be seriously improved, and I intend to do so...eventually. Once this has been done I will try to press the issue further. -Verdatum (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear on one point: Per WP:DAB, the correct criterion is not who is "more notable", but rather what people would expect to see if they just typed "Dick Smith" into the search box. Nobody (I hope) is doubting that Dick Smith the make-up artist is a very notable person. -- De Guerre (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would've thought notability to be equivalent of general awareness/interest which would mean that what people would expect to see is the same definition as who is more notable? In this case I would consider the businessman to be more widely known then the make-up artist and therefor more notable. Lympathy Talk 13:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In many, if not most, cases, the two notions coincide. However, I can imagine situations where they don't. No good examples spring to mind at the moment, but one poor example is that of the Whale tail. The cetacean appendage is arguably the most notable use of that term, but people typing in the phrase "Whale tail" may be more likely to be after information about the fashion phenomenon. And yes, I am very sorry for bringing up that example. -- De Guerre (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the page as originally suggested. The rebranding of 'Dick Smith Electronics' to 'Dick Smith' really takes precedence over the Dick Smith himself and as such the article on Dick Smith (the store chain) is going to be moved into 'Dick Smith'. Twistie.man (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering

I'm not that familiar with the norm in biographies so perhaps this isn't abnormal but I find it a bit odd the first section is about his involvement in aviation. While an encylopaedic part of his life, and I'm not an Australian I would expect his business ventures play a far greater part in his notability. (The disambig is entrepeneur after all and not aviator.) The aviation stuff seems to have come after his business stuff to so it's not like it's following chronological order either. I can understand early life/personal life sections coming first but that isn't really. The only real order I can see is alphabetical for the first 3 sections but that doesn't seem to be a great reason. Looking at Richard Branson and Steve Fossett, while they have different sections and are obviously different people with different involvements in the field, their business section comes before any record attempts and the like Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I am Australian and I just read this article for the first time. The aviation stuff should be after the electronics stuff. Chances are his electronics business financed the aviation. HiLo48 (talk)
Good one Nil Einne! I agree. I have moved the Business section higher in the article, above Aviation. What do you think? It might need some fine tuning now. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]