Talk:Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested Move[edit]

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: Moved to Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee). Note that more comments about the title have been made in some later sections of this page, beyond the end of this move discussion. I reviewed all these comments when trying to judge the consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Thomas Savage (died 1611) → Thomas Savage (goldsmith) – This should be moved so that it can be added to the disambiguation page using a similar naming convention as the pages already listed there. Technical 13 (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is premature. All the issues involved are currently under consideration at the Talk page [1] for the article William Leveson (mercer) and are currently unresolved. Moreover the article has been nominated and reviewed for DYK, and will soon be moved to the Main Page, and a change in the article title at this time would be extremely disruptive to the DYK process. Please withdraw this request until the other request has been resolved. NinaGreen (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This request is unrelated to the Talk:William Leveson (mercer)#Requested move discussion you refer to. That discussion has no other pages at this time of which disambiguation may be a concern and is opposed on the grounds that a page should not have a disambiguous name without any reason to disambiguate it. This page move/rename is in hopes of getting this article added to the disambiguation page for Thomas Savage so that it can more easily be found by visitors to the encyclopedia. Technical 13 (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I again ask that you withdraw the request. The issues are identical for both requests (whether date of death is a proper disambiguator, and whether membership in one of the twelve great livery companies is a confusing and unhelpful disambiguator, particularly in this case where Thomas Savage had another profession mentioned in the article which reliable sources state was one of his main sources of income. Moreover, and this is important, changing the page title in the middle of the DYK process would be extremely disruptive. NinaGreen (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your "Did You Know" concern is a moot point as far as I am concerned. This is about the overall functionality of Wikipedia, and no single entity on Wikipedia has the right to disrupt the other workings of the wiki. If you think that Thomas Savage (seacoal meter) would be more appropriate on Thomas Savage, I have no disagreement with that. However, Thomas Savage (died 1611) does not fit in with the other articles linked from there. I can see that me may soon reach an impasse here, and I encourage you to request a 3rd opinion if you wish. I'm not going to withdraw my request at this time, as you have not provided me with much of a persuasive argument to do so. Technical 13 (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As an experienced Wikipedia editor, I've been asked for a "third-party opinion" regarding this discussion. In the case of multiple persons with the same name, the usual disambiguation pattern is to include a descriptive parenthetical for each of the identically named persons. Birth year parentheticals are usually only used to disambiguate persons with the same when two or more of the persons have identical descriptive parentheticals (i.e. both played football "wide receiver"), and then the birth year ("b. 1961") is usually added to the description in the parenthetical. I hope this helps. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added comment: I am unfamiliar with how a name change might muddle the DYK process (I would not think that it would), but if that can be confirmed, then the easy solution is simply to not act on this RfM until the DYK evaluation process is complete. In my experience, the DYK reviewers are pretty thorough; they may prompt the name change for disambiguation reasons themselves. In any event, there is no immediate need to move the article title while the DYK is pending. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is common practise as per WP:MOS to use the profession as the delineator and not his death. And what harm will this do to the DYK process? Just keep the redirect. Someone move this immediately or I will.--Launchballer 19:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you hold off on the move, please. The reliable sources cited in the article indicate that he did not have a goldsmith's shop, and the proposed title change is therefore misleading. Thanks. NinaGreen (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure about the reason given in the proposal being valid, so I am ignoring that reason. I am treating the two names simply on their merits. I find the name qualified by the date identifier to be unusual, and that qualified by the occupation to be more usual. By this I mean it is what a Wikipedia reader would expect. I am heavily biased in favour of readers. I don't care a fig for the disambiguation page as rationale, I'm afraid. Those pages can be modelled in any way we choose, and any article may be added to them where relevant whatever the name style used. The articles require more thought. So, after a long preamble, and for my own reasons, I support Thomas Savage (goldsmith) as the name, provided he actually was a goldsmith. I am unconcerned about any history or prematurity of the proposal. Any DYK proposal has no relevance to the article title. The nomination there can be varied. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have said above, if you think that Thomas Savage (seacoal meter) would be more appropriate on Thomas Savage than Thomas Savage (goldsmith), I have no disagreement with that. Technical 13 (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your comments, Fiddle Faddle. According to the reliable sources on which the article is based, his primary income was not derived from being a goldsmith. I too am biased in favour of readers, and readers interested in Thomas Savage would be primarily interested in him as one of Shakespeare's trustees in the transfer of shares in the Globe Theatre, and virtually not at all in terms of his being a goldsmith or a seacoal meter or a substantial owner of rental properties in London, all of which were ways in which he derived his income. NinaGreen (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) For clarity, I am in favour of modifying the title by the eventually selected occupation (or notable feature), but not by a date. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So where are we moving this?--Launchballer 20:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until consensus is achieved, nowhere. There are two things to reach consensus on now. The eventual proposed name, and that move itself. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is primarily known for being Shakespeare's trustee in the transfer of shares in the Globe theatre. That's what anyone knowledgeable about this individual would be looking for. That's why I chose to identify him by date. There's no comprehensible way of adding his chief, and very significant claim to notability, to the title of the article. NinaGreen (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation of biographies is covered at WP:NCPDAB, and if unclear, you can request clarification at WT:BIOG (I see that they've not been informed of this dispute, or the one at Talk:William Leveson (mercer)#Requested move).
Regarding why the page should not be moved when a DYK is pending - see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 86#Template:Did you know nominations/William Calvin Chase, Washington Bee. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - If Thomas Savage's profession was goldsmith, then where is the contention? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I am indifferent to the disambiguous name as long as date of  death  isn't the disambiguator. My suggestions include:
  • I really don't care which, or you may feel free offer another alternative to (died ...), as that would simply would be counter-intuitive on Thomas Savage in my opinion. Technical 13 (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your helpful comments, Redrose64. I gather from reading the page to which you supplied a link that moving the article while the DYK process is ongoing breaks the links to the templates, and that it's therefore disruptive to move a page while the DYK process is ongoing. I asked the editor earlier to simply withdraw this request until the DYK process had been completed, but it now seems possible that a page move could have repercussions even after the DYK process has been completed. You mentioned informing WT:BIOG. I'll look into that, as this discussion is pertinent to that project. NinaGreen (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't really want to get drawn into this any furtehr, but the DYK process and template breakages can be solved. A DYK is a pleasant conceit for the article and the editor expanding the article. I do not say that in a demeaning way. We all deserve pleasant conceits. Nonetheless, the encyclopaedia is not a collection of DYKs, and the DYK must always be secondary to the building of the greater edifice. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After commenting above, I inquired on the DYK talk page regarding the potential impact of a requested move on a pending DYK nomination: Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Does a RfM impact a pending DKY? That inquiry has now been answered by one of the DYK regulars. I don't pretend to know the correct answer, but may I suggest that RedRose communicate with the folks on the DYK project talk page to resolve this? Either it's not a problem for DYK, and we move the article to a better disambiguation title immediately, or it is a problem and we wait a bit before moving it to a more appropriate title. Either way, it's in your hands, RedRose. Regards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend to imply that a DYK nom was a permanent bar to a page move. Eight hours after a DYK appears on the main page, it's removed again: any subsequent page move of the article will not affect the DYK process. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)(edit conflict)I think there is some confusion about what the discussion RedRose linked actually says. It says, "please never move nomination subpages." (ie, don't move Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thomas_Savage_(died_1611)) It does not say, "please never move articles that have been nominated." I hope this clears that point up. If we can agree upon the article name to move this to, the DYK guys can clean up their own templates and subpages, I am sure they are capable. Technical 13 (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, we are capable, providing the timing isn't bad. Problems occur if the move is done within a few hours before the article is featured on the main page or during the hours while it is there—the necessary adjustments at that point can only be made by an admin—and the scrambling to patch things up can be messy. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the move. I suggest Thomas Savage (Shakespearean associate) or Thomas Savage (Globe theatre) or something similarly specific. I would assume most WP users would search him out due to his connections with Elizabethan theatre or indeed Shakespeare. Is he known primarily for his chosen craft or his dealings in theatre ownership? I assume the DYK was in some way related to theatre rather than his artistic but mundane craft.(I havent looked at it yet) Then it would dovetail with the DYK as well. The accuracy of the disambiguation is key here. Irondome (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have the following comments: 1) I have added this article to the Thomas Savage disambiguation page. There is no reason it should not be there now. If the name changes it can be updated. 2) The article is the priority, not DYK. The DYK nomination should be withdrawn and this should be settled first. 3)Having the phrase: (died 1611) in the title is awkward and improper and the article name should be changed to: Thomas Savage (subjects main occupation), whatever that is. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for adding an entry to the Thomas Savage disambiguation page. Great idea. But let's get one thing straight. It's not 'improper' to use the date of death as a disambiguator according to Wikipedia's current policy.[[2]] The policy merely states thatYears of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators. Current policy doesn't state that it's 'improper' to use them, or that they cannot be used. In certain cases date of death may be the only option. It's all a matter of circumstances, and of meeting the needs of Wikipedia users. As for 'awkward', I can't think of anything more cumbersome and awkward than 'Shakespearean associate' or 'Globe theatre' proposed above. I'm not trying to be rude; it's just that those suggestions truly are 'awkward'. The one thing about date of death as a disambiguator is that it's completely neutral; it doesn't require subjective judgments about what a person's alleged 'occupation' primarily was. NinaGreen (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • NinaGreen, you are wikilawyering. I was asked for my opinion on this matter and I gave it. Based on my knowledge of this article and the current situation, the article is impromperly named and is not reader friendly and there is nothing in the guidelines that prevents this article from being renamed to a more WP conventional and user friendly title and I think it strange that you continue to oppose the change and the obvious consensus here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was open about the title. As long as it catches his foremost notability. Was he one of the foremost goldsmiths in the country? I doubt it. Is he known for his theatre property and share dealing contacts? It would seem so. So make up a short title that catches that. Ive seen far worse abominations in WP on dis. titles than Globe theatre btw :) Irondome (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Savage (2 wives, 5 kids, mate of Billy Waggledagger) there ya go. It is time to call a halt to this foolery. What we know is that there is a consensus against the current title. We also know that DYK is not mutually exclusive with title changing. So perhaps we could bring the mighty wisdom of crowds to the topic of choosing a simple, short, useful new title? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the one above. :) Globe theatre or Shakespeare trustee or associate float my boat. Nina, 1611 is perfectly fine, but it tells the user nothing. It gives no clue to what appears his real notability. I think it will just help the WP casual user more in pinning the subject down. Irondome (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as easy as it looks. Irondome asked: Is he known for his theatre property and share dealing contacts? No; he didn't own any theatre property and he didn't have any 'share dealing contacts' in the plural. Thomas Savage was only associated with the 'theatre' on the one occasion when he acted as a trustee for Shakespeare and four other prominent actors (their names are mentioned in the article), but of course any association with Shakespeare is notable, which is why Savage merits an article. He certainly wasn't associated in any way with the Globe theatre building itself. But since he was a trustee for four other prominent actors as well as Shakespeare in the transfer of the Globe shares, designating him merely as Shakespeare's trustee isn't necessarily an optimum choice, although it's the best that's been offered so far. There is a reason why I went with his date of death as a disambiguator. It's difficult to come up with another descriptor. As I've said before, that's a real problem with people of the Tudor period. They can't be easily pigeon-holed. There are a very large number of Wikipedia articles on people of the Tudor period which have MP in the title as a disambiguator, but no Wikipedia user familiar with the Tudor period would ever look for them under MP because Tudor Parliaments sat very infrequently, and these people probably sat in Parliament a total of a few weeks out of their entire lives, yet Wikipedia has them classified as MP rather than under their dates of death, which would be much more helpful to Wikipedia users. I think you people need to bend a little here. There's always room for improvement in anything, and I thought that was what Wikipedia was all about anyway, making things better. There's seems to be a tremendous inflexibility on this issue, even though current Wikipedia policy clearly doesn't prohibit the use of dates of death as disambiguators. All that said, Shakespeare's trustee is the best suggestion that's been offered because that's what most Wikipedia users would probably look for, and I'd be willing to settle for that IF there's agreement (1) that in some cases date of death can be used as a disambiguator (as Wikipedia policy currently provides), particularly for people in the Tudor period when occupations weren't as fixed as they are now and many notable people who had landed wealth didn't have any occupation as such at all, and (2) the page move is delayed until a couple of weeks after the DYK nomination has been posted so as not to disrupt the DYK process. There are a large number of editors who put a tremendous amount of work into the DYK project, and people here shouldn't be thumbing their noses at them and disregarding their efforts all for the sake of changing a single article title! NinaGreen (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly was not thumbing my nose. Any sane editor will have tremendous respect for Eds working on the ground and getting things done. Or we wouldnt be here. I find your arguments for the difficulty in "pinning down" the occs of people of this period well put. True multi taskers. I would go with Trustee and agree with you. Irondome (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It sounds like we have a deal.:-) NinaGreen (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They can be very easily sorted, provided the crazies-to-thread ratio is low :) Cheers! Irondome (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as improvement, though even better would be Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee) or Thomas Savage (Globe Theatre); "sea coal meter" is meaningless and misleading to anyone under the age of 400 years old. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: it seems clear from the discussion that "goldsmith" is far from ideal, and there are others that would be preferable. If a consensus can be attained regarding different article name, I could support that, but not "goldsmith". Incidentally, as this will not be closing until April 23 at the earliest, and the article is currently scheduled to run as part of DYK at the end of the day on April 19, there should be no issue involving DYK that should impede an article move subsequent to April 19. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current title blows, new title needed, ambivalent as to which. Red Slash 23:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Consensus or dissent on working title Shakespeare's trustee[edit]

  • Support on the strength of it most closely reflecting the strongest Notability factor regarding the subject, the closest in terms of wording and subject matter that most searches will match on WP pertaining to this subject, and the best compromise that involved producing contributing parties can agree to at this time. Irondome (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as disambiguation if Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee) is what the above means. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not entirely support this move. There is an aspect that has not been considered. Move Thomas Savage to Thomas Savage (disambiguation), currently a redirect. That leaves matters clear for this chap to be simply Thomas Savage, something that is appropriate because of the great difficulty in finding a sole defining characteristic. I am also concerned that the gentleman appears to have inherited his notability from an association with Shakespeare. I once stood on Warren Mitchell's foot and have other characteristics that made me borderline notable as an expert in something or other. There is no Wikipedia article on me, nor should there be. Broadly, Savage was a trustee for a few luvvies and otherwise earned his living in unexceptional ways. He owned 5 houses and a pub. It is only because one of those luvvies gained notability that he is at all notable. So, for me, two things are necessary before gaining my full support. Investigate a move to Thomas Savage pure and simple, with associated other moves, and show me that he is truly notable and not simply interesting. Previously I had not considered either thought in any depth. A night's sleep has produced some clarity in my thinkong. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It sounds as though the compromise has gone out the window, and some interesting further points have been raised which are worth considering. The comments in this discussion have raised the issue of what exactly Wikipedia disambiguation in article titles is all about. Some Wikipedia editors emphasize the person's occupation in the article title. Some Wikipedia editors emphasize the person's notability factor in the article title. Some Wikipedia editors emphasize something the person has been associated with in the article title. There's an enormous difference between Thomas Savage (goldsmith) and Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee) and Thomas Savage (Globe theatre). Exactly how does current Wikipedia policy handle this enormous difference in the way different editors perceive the essential purpose of disambiguation in article titles? Is Wikipedia policy actually clear on what the focus of disambiguation is? Is it occupation, is it some striking feature which has made the person notable? It is something notable with which the person is associated? I think we need to look at the five criteria in the Wikipedia policy statement with those questions in mind.
    • The second point which has been raised is Wikipedia's policy on what notability consists of. Is the policy applied differently to people from different time periods, and much more stringently to people from earlier historical periods than current minor 'celebrities'? Thomas Savage's name appears in books on Shakespeare every year, 400 years after his death. Yet Fiddle Faddle questions his notability. On the other hand there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles on people living today whose accomplishments are minor, and who likely won't be remembered a decade from now, let alone 400 years from now.
    • A third point which has occurred to me as a result of yesterday's reorganization of the Thomas Savage disambiguation page is that irrespective of article titles, a properly organized disambiguation page resolves everything for a Wikipedia user searching for an individual who shares a common name with others. The Thomas Savage disambiguation page, after yesterday's reorganization of it, lets any Wikipedia user pick out the Thomas Savage he or she is after simply by looking at the dates of death and disambiguating information supplied for each entry. So in that respect, the title of this article doesn't need to be changed at all, as Wikipedia users' needs are fully met with the article title as it stands in combination with the disambiguation page for all the Thomas Savages as it stands. The point is, perhaps Wikipedia editors should be putting more effort into setting up well-organized disambiguation pages than fretting over article titles.
    • A fourth point which was raised was whether this article could simply be titled Thomas Savage. I would have no problem with that if it can be done without using Thomas Savage (disambiguation) as the article title. If anything would throw a Wikipedia user off, it would be an article titled Thomas Savage (disambiguation). NinaGreen (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think compromise is not out of the window. I think it is delayed, simply, and may not be required (in a good way). Notability is a bit of a movable concept. Today we have notable sportspeople, a century ago probably less so. One could, perhaps, be a notable Seacoal Meter, but I think one is not "notable because he did business with Shakespeare" unless, of course, Shakespeare's touch turns everyone notable. So the notability needs to be established beyond doubt, and to be his own. Then we can name the article. We should probably move to discussing the bar for notability for the gentleman. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be useful to note here that I've proposed a solution for the identical issue with respect to the William Leveson article. This is what I posted on that Talk page just now:
Perhaps there is a very simple solution to this problem. The reason I couldn't use William Leveson as the title of this article when I created it, and had to add a disambiguator to the article title, is that there was (and still is) a redirect in place which sends a search for William Leveson to the disambiguation page for Leveson-Gower. If that redirect could be reversed, then this article could be titled simply William Leveson.
  • If we could figure out a way to simply title this article Thomas Savage, we could eliminate the problem. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the technical side of Wikipedia to know whether it can be done.
  • Incidentally, while reading over the Wikipedia policy statements on article titles, I noticed a statement that Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.[3] Those are the words of those who framed the Wikipedia policy statement on article titles, not mine. NinaGreen (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, wouldn't the same solution apply to this problem? Currently, a search for Thomas Savage takes one straight to a disambiguation page. Shouldn't a search for Thomas Savage go to the primary article on a Thomas Savage, and shouldn't there be a hatnote on the primary article taking users to a Thomas Savage disambiguation page? So all that's needed to resolve the problem is to retitle this article Thomas Savage, and add a hatnote taking users to the Thomas Savage disambiguation page? I'm not sufficiently familiar with the technical side to know how that could be done, but there are technical gurus out there who could no doubt do it easily. NinaGreen (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grr. I wanted to post this last night but had no computer and the page was too big to load in a timely fashion on my BlackBerry. The title of the article should be the name and what he is most known for, if that happens to be "Shakespear's trustee" that is fine. That being said, there is nothing that says (and actually it is quite common) that you can't add the date of death to the disambiguation page. It would look something like:
    This would allow him to have a "standardized" article title and still include his date of death and the other things he did. Does everyone agree this is reasonable? Technical 13 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first order of business is to deal with the faulty disambiguation page for Thomas Savage (see above). A search for Thomas Savage should not go straight to a disambiguation page which is not titled as such. This is an example of how it should work [4], i.e. a search for Richard Leveson takes one to whichever article is merely titled Richard Leveson, without any disambiguators, and a hatnote on that article directs one to the Richard Leveson disambiguation page, which is clearly titled as such. NinaGreen (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe I'm wrong about how this is supposed to work on Wikipedia? Is there a policy which someone can direct us to for clarification? The practice of not titling a disambiguation page as such, and of having searches go straight to a disambiguation page which is not titled as such seems to be widespread. I just now found this one when I searched for William Stafford, and was taken straight to a disambiguation page which is not titled as such,[5] rather than to a primary article on William Stafford with a hatnote directing users to a disambiguation page. How is this really supposed to work according to Wikipedia policy? I'll ask at the HelpDesk. NinaGreen (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that anything requiring disambiguation should have searches point to that disambiguation page. It is the easiest and fastest way to get everyone to what they were looking for because the system can't read minds, yet... Technical 13 (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But what's the current policy? Disambiguation isn't working in a vacuum. There must be policy somewhere on how disambiguation pages are to be set up. NinaGreen (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In general disambiguation pages are most usually Fee Fie Foe Foo (disambiguation). Those that are not may be made so, but need not be made so. Various templates are already constructed to point to Fee Fie Foe Foo (disambiguation). Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds logical that (disambiguation) should be in the title of the page; it would be nice to see that set down in policy somewhere because I suspect it would help to avoid certain problems. Is there really no place where there's an actual Wikipedia policy on disambiguation pages? Are there just the templates? In any event, can you advise as to where these templates are to be found? I've been wanting to set up some disambiguation pages as I've been editing, but haven't been sure how to do it. NinaGreen (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Disambiguation}} and some hatnotes are a good place to start. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not very technically savvy, so can you walk me through one? If I search for Robert Throckmorton, it takes me right to a single page, but if a search for Sir Robert Throckmorton there are three Robert Throckmortons [6]. So how would I create the page? Would I just create a new page with the title Robert Throckmorton (disambiguation), and then pop in a template, and if so, which one should I use?
    OK, I created a disambiguation page for Robert Throckmorton with the title 'Robert Throckmorton (disambiguation)', and everything seems to work. Now back to the original problem. This little experiment suggests to me that the Thomas Savage disambiguation page is indeed faulty since it doesn't have the word 'disambiguation' in the title. I've left a message at the HelpDesk to try to find out whether it can be fixed or not. Depending on the answer we get to that problem, we can figure out where to go next with the article title issue. NinaGreen (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nina, the WP:disambiguation page probably has the best explanation on how all this works. Have you checked it out? My take would be that since there isn't a primary Thomas Savage out there—one who everyone would think of first—then it makes sense to have "Thomas Savage" as a disambiguation page without the "(disambiguation)" name on it. For example, the All or Nothing page. It's when you have a primary meaning like Anne Hathaway, to pick a Shakespeare-related example, that you need a disambiguation page so the other people with that name can be found. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much for the clarification. I've read the WP:disambiguation page several times in the past, and have never been able to determine from it how disambiguation on Wikipedia actually works, I think because for me it's counterintuitive that some disambiguation pages have the word (disambiguation) in the page title while others don't. After your explanation, and the explanation by Benea yesterday when I asked about this at the HelpDesk, I finally get it. However it's still counterintuitive, and I think a specific example involving articles on persons with the same name on the WP:disambiguation page might be helpful. I'll see whether I can come up with a suggestion. NinaGreen (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Shakespeare's trustee" but not "died 1611" because the former is more likely to be known by a searcher than the latter. David Spector (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Thomas Savage notable in his own right[edit]

I remain to be convinced. It is not a thing that requires a deletion discussion, it is a thing those interested in the article need to establish in order to avoid deletion discussions. What makes TS notable in his own right? Why is he worthy of an article in his own right? Much of what is here might be merged with another article or articles, so why is the gentleman deserving of his place in WIkipedia? I think he is borderline individually notable, but I'm worried that is because I am influenced by his theatrical connections. Should I be influenced by them? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability has this general criterion:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

The article establishes that that criterion has been met. NinaGreen (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't even thought about whether this person even deserves a page. I think that regardless of his notability independent of his association with William Shakespear, due to the length of both articles (how long the William Shakespear would be particularly if "all" of these semi-notable associates), that it would qualify as a WP:SPINOUT (assuming it followed protocol for that editing guideline). Technical 13 (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the notability of subject. He appears regularly in cited works on Shakespearean and related subjects, so that should be enough. Also subjects who have a provable though even tenuous connection with S appear surprisingly thin on the ground. I would say that reinforces notability here. WP Spinout also adds to the legitimacy of the subject on WP as a possible defence. Are we now at a stage where a consensus of title and technical assistance is all that is required? Sorry been playing catchup here. @ Ed.Fiddle Faddle. How do you regard notability of the subject that is robustly defensible on WP and a possible dis. title at this stage in the proceedings? Cheers all. Irondome (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something very strange![edit]

I attempted to create a new article mainspace Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee) a few mins ago but it didnt look like it worked. Nowe I notice EpicGenius either had exactly the same idea at the same time or that I somehow created a new article dis and didnt know it. In any event, excellent! Irondome (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EG saw it and redirected it. Spoke on Eds talkpage. In any event we now have an article with that functioning title on WP. I assume this sorts out the dis. issues? Irondome (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's been done, but I thought we had agreed to hold off until the DYK nomination process was finished. NinaGreen (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Talk page doesn't seem to have moved with the article, and there's a lot of unfinished business on the Talk page, including the DYK nomination and the page move request. I'm not technically savvy, so I don't really know what's going on, but I wish people had waited, as per the agreement. NinaGreen (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasnt aware of any consensus agreement holding off until the DYK issue was sorted. I just thought we needed to address technically moving the article to a new dis. title and a discussion of mame. Editor EpicGenius moved like lightening. I assume we can move the talk page over or reverse it. Irondome (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have undone the copy-and-paste of this article into a new article using a different name. New articles should not be created; once there is consensus, the article should be moved (using the move function) to the new name, so article history is not lost. The Shakespeare's trustee name is now a redirect to this article. If there is consensus, then can someone who knows how to do this kind of move do it? (It may involve deleted "Shakespeare's trustee" and then moving this article there along with its talk page.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well its progress anyway :) You just need to enable move function and we can move it ourselves? Great. Does this include talk and any name edit function? Irondome (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see two "Support"s only so far. Where's the consensus for this move to be made?
  • There appears a general consensus emerging that the title can be lived with. Nina and Fiddle Faddle are not viscerally opposing at this point. It appears consensual that some renaming may be in order. Notability and article defence of, was emerging as a dominant issue, from my reading, apart from the technical problem of disambiguation. Your assistance is very appreciated. Irondome (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the move function will also move the talk page; however, the existence already of the "Shakespeare's trustee" page may complicate things. If so, an admin will be needed to handle things (the deletion I mentioned), probably as part of closing this Request for Move. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. So any technical move could be incorporated as part of an admin wrap-up. You have been a great help. Irondome (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't believe this has happened! It seems to me that editors on the technical side need to have some respect for the editors who create the articles as well as the editors who work on time-consuming projects such as DYK, and shouldn't just treat other editors' work as playthings! That respect hasn't been evident here from the get-go. Technical 13 jumped in with a requested page move without any prior discussion whatsoever on the Talk page. And then there was an agreement on this page that if a new title were adopted the move would be held off until the DYK process was completed, and that there would also be an acknowledgement that in some cases, as Wikipedia policy already provides, disambiguation can be by date of death, and technical people needn't come in like gangbusters to undo something which already accords with existing Wikipedia policy. The agreement which was made on this page wasn't honoured, and perhaps now it will take an admin to undo things! What's happened is absurd. It may be we've ended up with a better article title, but the process has been disrespectful. NinaGreen (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you protest too much. Point me to this agreement. I certainly was unaware of it and did not contribute to that aspect of the discussion. Notability and technical issues seemed the primary concerns here. Now we have moved on to some extent. An admin would be needed in any event to wrap this up. So now we know any tech issues can be resolved at that juncture too. What actual damage has there been? Attempting adroitly or clumsily to improve this article is not disrespect. I am confident that you are not questioning my Good Faith here. And I didnt move the article. I merely created a new article title with an empty mainspace, to see if it could be done. It was to form the basis of further title, technical and notability discussion. At least we could prove a move with namechange was technically feasable. An independent and I must say, very vigilant Ed added the rest. You may be suffering from a slight attack of Ownership here. Irondome (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that this paragraph was modified considerably while I was writing the below. Irondome, I think your enthusiasm is laudable, but your experimentation to see whether a move would be feasible hasn't really proved that it is technically feasible: most of us have long known that it was, having been involved in uncontroversial and controversial moves in the past, and been involved in previous Request for Move submissions. Your actions and Ed's were not only unnecessary as a test, but ended up doing something inappropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I would like to point out that as a formal request for move has been opened, no move should take place nor action be taken on it until the request is closed, which requires at least seven days. There's a description of the process available from the link in the box above. You may not have moved the article, Irondome, but the article was moved before I reversed the process, which effectively bypassed the formal Request for Move process. What ought to be happening on this page is an attempt to determine what the article's name ought to be at the end of it: if that can't be decided, the request will drag on, since there seems to be a general agreement that the current name is not desirable, but also that the proposed name in the nomination is not desirable either. Nina is certainly correct to complain that the end result was a subversion of the process.
However, I don't think there's anything particularly unusual about putting in a Request for Move without prior discussion, even if it's disconcerting to the person who created and worked on the article. Even after two years I'm still stumbling across Wikipedia conventions that I hadn't run into before: article naming preferences when there are a lot of people with the same name is one of them. One thing that keeps Wikipedia running is the people who know how things are generally organized, and fix or point out issues when non-standard things are done. DYK can handle whatever comes out of this process if it happens at a reasonably convenient moment; with any luck the article will have appeared on the main page prior to April 23 (seven days from the day the Request was opened), the earliest a move is likely to happen. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with the above personal criticisms given. I must note that my actions appear not have damaged the article, apart from in a WP Procedural sense. I will continue to contribute to the improvement of this article to the best of my ability and increasing knowledge of the etiquite of the structure I am interacting in. Irondome (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let us continue the discussion[edit]

  • I agree, and was under the general impression that your original naming proposal which I endorsed was in broad agreement with consensus. However I suggest another 48 hrs max for any other viewpoints, summaries or new views from Nina, Keithbob, Fiddle Faddle and others, and also from previously uninvolved Eds with a reasonable knowledge of the subject would be cool. Anyway we might get some interesting additional discussion, and thats always good. Irondome (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned earlier, there is a statement at WP:TITLE that Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.[7]. In other words, experienced Wikipedia editors and drafters of policy recognize that battles over article titles are essentially a waste of people's time. I feel a great deal of my time has been wasted in this debate, and Irondome's proposal to draw in even more editors is simply an invitation for more people to waste their time. As it seems Technical 13 and Irondome are the editors most preoccupied with getting this title changed, the onus is on them to demonstrate that the title they are suggesting clearly meets the 5 criteria set out at WP:TITLE, and that it is also consistent with the principles set out at WP:NCP. Since experienced Wikipedia editors have taken the trouble to point out that debate over article titles is a time-waster, it's incumbent on those proposing title changes to demonstrate specifically that what they're suggesting is the best possible way of satisfying the 5 criteria at WP:TITLE, and satisfying the principles at WP:NCP. That will give the discussion a much-needed focus, and cut down on the time-wasting. NinaGreen (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You actually agreed to the title change yourself Nina, with the provisio that nothing better comes along. See above. Irondome (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've had time to reflect on the 5 criteria, and on the fact that you and Technical 13 have not devoted any attention to demonstrating that the title best satisfies the 5 criteria at WP:TITLE and the principles at WP:NCP. If you have to do that in this instance, it might restrain your enthusiasm in future for getting editors involved in something Wikipedia itself points out is usually a waste of editors' time. In the end, everything comes down to Wikipedia policy. If you and Technical 13 can demonstrate that your proposed title best satisfies Wikipedia policy, so be it. But so far you haven't done that. NinaGreen (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. I am not easily restrained Nina. I would be content to comply with that. It will take me around some WP procedure as well. I do think you should remember I too am an editor. We all had day 1 or year 1. As my wonderful mother died a month ago and am in the toils of many things, give me a few days ok? Thank you. Regards.Irondome (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, Nina... Nope, I don't want to be unnecessarily combative or seem uncivil, so I'm simply going to comply with your request. Here are the 5 criteria of WP:TITLE and the rationals for each of them...
    • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize.
      • I contest that disambiguating based on the year that Tommy died is something that only and expert on the subject will recognize and that "Shakespeare's trustee" is something other's familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, will recognize.
    • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.
      • I think that the majority of readers that are not experts on the Tudor period are more likely to search for him by is association with Shakespeare and not the year of his death.
    • Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
    • Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
      • Neither suggested titles are longer than necessary to identify the article's subject.
    • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles.
  • Now, as to WP:NCP, of which the only section that seems to be relevant is WP:QUALIFIER of which I quote...
    • "The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being. Some of these are standard, commonly used tags, such as "(musician)" and "(politician)". Try to avoid abbreviations or anything capitalised or containing hyphens, dashes or numbers (apart from where more specific guidelines specify particular exceptions to that), and also try to limit the tag to a single, recognizable and highly applicable word. Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators (readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it) although this may be necessary when there are multiple people with the same name and tag, such as Andy Gray (footballer born 1955), Andy Gray (footballer born 1964), and Andy Gray (footballer born 1977)."
      • What this says is that the first choice should be a noun indicating what the person is noted for being. The next section suggests that we should move this article to simply Thomas Savage (trustee) as that would be avoiding capitalization and use of multiple words, but I contest that this would be too ambiguous. This section also says there shouldn't be numbers which means that the current multiple word Thomas Savage (died 1611) shouldn't exist at all. Yes, there are the exceptions to that and we move on. The next sentence says that years of birth and death are not normally used, which also lends to expect that Thomas Savage (died 1611) is unsuitable as an article title. This article does not apply to the last sentence, which nonetheless suggests that date of birth is preferred over date of death (there are NO examples of date of death being acceptable).
  • I've now wasted more of my time on something that was consensually agreed upon above that this page should be moved to Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee) and I'm getting tired of it so I am going to look for an administrator to make the moves, clean up all of the redirects and close these discussions. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I just thought of this, let's make this super easy and take the first admin that comes along... {{Admin help}} Technical 13 (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technical 13, this is typical of your approach, and demonstrates why you should find some better way to occupy your time on Wikipedia. Irondome has asked for more time to reply on compassionate grounds, you haven't given me any time to reply to your discussion of policy (now that you've finally been forced into discussing policy), and there is a Wikipedia process in place which you yourself initiated for the page move, and now you want to push both Irondome's request aside and push aside the process you yourself initiated for the page move by involving an administrator. And let's not forget that you initiated the page move request in the first place with a title you no longer support, and that there never was consensus because Fiddle Faddle disagreed the morning after it appeared that consensus was reached. Your own opinion on something does not constitute consensus. NinaGreen (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This comment just seems like a stall tactic to a response you weren't expecting. I've filled in the blanks and I suspect that Irondome will have no disagreement with my assessment. I've discussed the policy many times above, and you've ignored (or at very least failed to respond to my comments). I'm going to ignore your implied personal attacks and your poking with sharp sticks and stick to the discussion here. I'm not pushing the process aside, I'm pushing it forward. The initial proposal, regardless of the article title I suggested in the box, was "This should be moved so that it can be added to the disambiguation page using a similar naming convention as the pages already listed there." After discussion, I agreed that Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee) may be a better title than one I originally specified, yes. This was based on discussion and consensus that the subject of the article was likely best known as a trustee. How could there be "never a consensus" and then "consensus was reached"? Furthermore, Fiddle Faddle's position was "For clarity, I am in favour of modifying the title by the eventually selected occupation (or notable feature), but not by a date." and I honestly don't see how that supports your claim that there was no consensus. The only stick in the mud in this whole discussion, has been you. That being said, you yourself replied to Tim's statement with "He is primarily known for being Shakespeare's trustee in the transfer of shares in the Globe theatre. That's what anyone knowledgeable about this individual would be looking for." Which is where the title of Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee) stemmed from and you yourself claimed "Thanks! It sounds like we have a deal.:-)" in response to Irondome's comment of "I would go with Trustee and agree with you." which is where YOU AGREED to this title change. Technical 13 (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with conditions, which were not met (see above), and since then I've considered the 5 criteria further, and instead of waiting to listen to what I had to say, and waiting for Irondome's discussion of policy, in your impatience you've pushed aside the process which you yourself initiated and which BlueMoonset advised above is to be followed when a page move is requested, and are seeking to escalate matters and get your own way immediately by involving an administrator. There are more productive ways to use your time on Wikipedia. NinaGreen (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've cancelled the adminhelp - I see no reason why this RM should not go it's due course - another two days is not going to hurt anybody - and I suspect it might need it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article should be moved to the newly created page Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee). It appears that Technical 13 and Irondome also agree to this change. Is there anyone who opposes the change besides NinaGreen? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civility reminder[edit]

To all editors on the page, Per WP:TALK please keep the discussion on the content not the contributor and also:

  • "Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases (most usually to highlight "oppose" or "support" summaries of an editor's view), but should be used judiciously, as it may appear the equivalent of the writer raising his voice. Italics may be used more frequently for emphasis or clarity on key words or phrases, but should be avoided for long passages."
  • -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize, I am getting frustrated with Nina's stall tactics and her flip-flopping (which I believe is her right, despite it being frustrating for everyone else). I've made my positions known and offered what I can. I intend to refrain from further comments on this topic until the 7 days has passed to request it properly closed, but retain the option to reply to questions directly pointed at me in regards to the topic being discussed. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stall tactics? Flip-flopping? Frustrating for everyone else? After a civility reminder? This demonstrates once again why you should find better ways to occupy your time on Wikipedia. Reasoned analysis is what is needed here, not castigation of someone whose position on Wikipedia policy differs from yours. NinaGreen (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the job done for Wikipedia users[edit]

The primary purpose of disambiguation, both in article titles and on disambiguation pages, which work in tandem, is getting the job done for Wikipedia readers, that is, taking them as quickly as possible to the article they are searching for in the Wikipedia search box. It is highly unlikely that any Wikipedia user ever searches for a person's name plus a disambiguator in parentheses, i.e. a Wikipedia user is highly unlikely to search for either 'Thomas Savage (died 1611)' or 'Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee)'. A Wikipedia user searching for the subject of this article would type 'Thomas Savage' into the Wikipedia search box, and would be taken directly to the disambiguation page, which is where Wikipedia gets the job done for the user by listing all the individuals of that name together with a short description which distinguishes them from each other. Any Wikipedia user searching for the subject of this article would thus immediately see that he/she wants the second person listed. There is thus no need for any change in the article title because the Wikipedia user's needs are already expeditiously met by the current article title and disambiguation page working in tandem.

Thus, the proposed change of the article's title to 'Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee)' is (1) inaccurate, (2) inconsistent with Wikipedia's stated preference for single-word descriptors, (3) something no Wikipedia reader would search for in the Wikipedia search box and (4) problematic because of the bungled page move which took place a few days ago to that title, so that there is now a redirect away from the title 'Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee)'.

(1)The reason the title is inaccurate is that Savage was a trustee for 5 Globe shareholders, not just Shakespeare, and as the facts cited from reliable sources in the article indicate, Savage was much more closely associated with another of the 5 shareholders, John Heminges, than he was with Shakespeare, so the title 'Thomas Savage (John Heminges' trustee)' more accurately reflects how Savage actually became involved with the trusteeship. But that title would be cumbersome, and would mean little to most Wikipedia users. The title 'Thomas Savage ('trustee') would be more strictly accurate (as I mentioned earlier on this page), but would be meaningless to most Wikipedia users. So given that the proposed title, 'Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee)', is only partially accurate, why change to it?

(2) That the proposed title is inconsistent with Wikipedia's stated preference for single-word descriptors is self-evident.

(3) That no reader would type 'Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee)' into the Wikipedia search box is also self-evident, so the proposed title change doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's preference for titles Wikipedia users would naturally type into the Wikipedia search box.

(4) That there will be problems moving the article to the proposed title because of the bungled attempt a few days ago which resulted in the creation of a page titled 'Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee)', from which there is now a redirect, is also self-evident. Those problems can perhaps be resolved, but why bother when the proposed title does not and would not satisfy Wikipedia users' needs any better than the current title and the disambiguation page working in tandem?

Of course I like the words 'Shakespeare's trustee' in any article title. Shakespeare is an interest of mine, and anything which emphasizes Shakespeare naturally appeals to me. But the needs of Wikipedia users are paramount, and since they clearly won't be any better served by the proposed change, why bother?

All that said, I feel that Technical 13, Irondome and KeithBob are out to win a battle here, and won't rest until the article title is changed. If they insist, it won't break my heart because, as I've said, anything which emphasizes Shakespeare naturally appeals to me. But whatever the outcome, the battle has been pointless, and has amply demonstrated that Wikipedia policy makers are correct when they state, right on the policy page in question, that debates over controversial article titles are usually unproductive, and that there are better ways for editors to improve Wikipedia. NinaGreen (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nina, there is no "battle" here. I rather think the tone of the last section above is needlessly confrontational. Irondome (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would echo all of the points in Irondome's comment above. There was a discussion and a consensus and a change. WP is a collaborative project. Things don't always go the way we want them to. If you want to be a successful member on this project you will need to acquire the ability to be more flexible and tolerant of other people's views. You are a good editor and have made many valuable contributions but now its time to move on. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why you and Irondome feel the way you do, and I'm fully aware that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. But when it comes to the matter of changing article titles, an editor who has contributed nothing to the article and is not at all knowledgeable about the topic should not just charge in requesting a page move when the title already complies with Wikipedia policy and meets Wikipedia users' needs, and other editors should not jump in supporting that conduct. Under the circumstances I've just described, as a matter of courtesy there should be some prior discussion on the article's Talk page by the editor in question before he puts in a formal request for a page move. That's what collaboration, flexibility and tolerance of other people's views are all about. That said, it is time to move on. NinaGreen (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that I found your conduct in this saga totally inexplicable. You agree to a change in title, and then go back on the agreement. A good faith move attempt (which I have repeatedly and perhaps unecessarily, apologised for), you insistently harp upon. In fact I attempted the move AFTER your apparent agreement to the new title, which you wriggled out of subsequently. It was you who appeared to be bucking the clearly emerging consensus to the change. To serially accuse me of somehow ignoring consensus is, in the light of the chronology of events, very disengenuous. It was my move which got things happening. Or we should still be here. You appear to be a hesitant editor, who prefers to discuss rather than do. My knowledge of the subject is of a good average standard and is constantly expanding, so your pronouncement of my expertise is inaccurate and patronising, especially your thereby implied point that I had no business commenting here at all. That is not a good attitude for a WP Ed to hold to untested newcomers who may provide more to projects than certain prejudices would allow for. In any event, it is irrelevant. It had to be said. Now, peace and I hope to encounter you again in other more productive circumstances on WP. Kind regards Irondome (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it didn't have to be said, but since you've said it, I'm going to reiterate my point because there's far too much of this sort of thing going on on Wikipedia. When an editor (Technical 13) has contributed absolutely nothing to a brand-new Wikipedia article, it is utterly rude and counter-productive for that editor to charge in with a formal request to have the title of the article changed for no good reason, and it's unproductive for other editors, such as yourself, to involve yourself in and support that conduct. It was all a huge waste of everyone's time (as the Wikipedia policy itself states such debates over article titles almost usually are), and on top of that it was uncollegial and rude. NinaGreen (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I assumed you were referring to me. It did Nina, because some of your comments did sting, and I have returned after a period, so I just wished to clarify my position in an exhaustive and FINAL comment. As I say and mean, peace. Irondome (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To all concerned: If there is a content issue, then start a new thread, and state what it is without personalizing it or commenting on the behavior of other editors per WP:TALK. If you have an issue with another editor's behavior-- please take it to their user talk page, thanks. It's time for this conversation to stop. If it continues, I'm going to have to ask an Administrator to step in. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keithbob, I was very surprised to have Irondome re-open the discussion yesterday so long after the fact, but I'm equally surprised at your comment today since Irondome had clearly stated in his final comment yesterday that he had nothing further to say. Your threat to call in an administrator to put an end to a conversation which Irondome had already ended is counterproductive and uncalled-for. Why doesn't everyone who isn't actively editing the content of this article just take it off their watchlist and get on with life? I created a very nice little article here which filled a gap on Wikipedia and was featured on the Wikipedia Main Page on DYK. Let's celebrate that, and move on to other things. NinaGreen (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seacoal-meter[edit]

The term "seacoal-meters" is used in this article without adequate definition (in one place, it is defined as "officials appointed to measure coal brought into the port of London by sea," which for me raises more questions than it answers). A good definition should be added, as it is not a commonly used term today. Note: it appears as a wikilink to "Coal", but that article only defines "seacoal", not "seacoal-meter" or "meter". The wikilink should therefore be removed. David Spector (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Savage_(Shakespeare%27s_trustee)&oldid=1205480162"