Talk:William Leveson

Request to undo page move

Hi 069952497a,

I notice you've just moved the page to William Leveson (mercer). Could you undo this page move? People familiar with this person would not search for him under 'mercer', as he is better known for other aspects of his life and career. The original title with the date of death better meets the needs of Wikipedia users searching for this article, and conforms to the five criteria set out in Wikipedia: Article titles. It's been my experience that people familiar with this period are generally much better served by seeing the date of the person's death in the title, as is the practice in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and other sources of that nature, because most people of the Tudor period wore many hats during their lifetimes, and attempting to classify them by any one of them is problematic. NinaGreen (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

OK then, will undo. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 19:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I seem to have screwed things up rather monumentally. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 19:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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: page moved to William Leveson. ukexpat (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

---

William Leveson (mercer) → William Leveson (died 1621) – See discussion on talkpage. Undo earlier move. Taketa (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Opposed: Typically, pages are named in response to disambiguation by location of birth. If that is conflicting, they may be named by occupation. If that is conflicting, perhaps date of birth. I've never seen them named by date of death. As there are no other William Leveson's with the occupation of "mercer" on this encyclopedia, I see no reason to move it. Furthermore, I'm tempted to contest the notability of this author and the references that are provided for him as most of them seem to go to places that do not refer to William Leveson at all but instead, William Gresham or Sir John Leveson... I would like to see an expert on the subject comment on this before any more moves are made. Technical 13 (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. There is another William Leveson, also a mercer, who is often confused with this William Leveson, and since this William Leveson was William Shakespeare's trustee in the transfer of the Globe Theatre shares in 1599, it's obviously helpful to Wikipedia users to make it immediately clear which was which, and since both were mercers, the easiest way to differentiate the two is by date of death. (I plan to do an article on the other William Leveson in the near future). Moreover it would be very unusual for Wikipedia users who are searching for articles on persons who lived in the Tudor period to search under an occupation such as 'mercer' since most people in that period wore many different occupational 'hats'. For example, Sir Thomas Smith is listed in Wikipedia as Thomas Smith (diplomat), yet he was a Privy Councillor, statesman, secretary to the Queen, author, scholar, and more, so 'diplomat' is very limiting, and Thomas Smith (died 1577) would be much more comprehensible to a Wikipedia user familiar with the Tudor period. What most Wikipedia users searching in that period of history are looking for is a quick way to determine whether they have the right person, and date of death is one of the clearest and quickest ways of doing that (date and place of birth aren't feasible for persons from this period because both are usually totally unknown or very uncertain). Most standard references such as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography put the date of death right after the person's name at the beginning of an article. I hope this information is helpful, and that the request to retitle the article will go through. Best, NinaGreen (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Date of death is a very poor disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  Could you explain your comment? As I've noted, date of death is the disambiguator used in most standard biographical references, including the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Why would a disambiguator routinely used by standard reliable sources be a 'very poor disambiguator'? Moreover most notable people of the Tudor period wore many occupational 'hats' during their lives, and attempting to identify them by any one of them is problematic for that reason. In addition, in this specific case there are two London mercers, both named William Leveson, who are often confused, and since one was Shakespeare's trustee it's important to differentiate them clearly. What is the article on the second one (who died in 1593) to be titled if I create it? It obviously can't be titled William Leveson (mercer) if that title is used for this article on the William Leveson, also a mercer, who died in 1621. I'd appreciate your comments on these points. NinaGreen (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  The current one could be possibly moved to William Leveson (mercer of London) and the new one could be William Leveson (mercer of birthplace). I've been busy with projects this morning, but I'll work on the detailed list of problems and post them when I have a moment. Technical 13 (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  As I've mentioned before on this page, the birthplaces and birthdates of notable figures of the Tudor period are often either entirely unknown or very uncertain, and the use of them as disambiguators for people of that period is thus highly speculative. Dates of death for notable figures of the Tudor period, on the other hand, are often known with certainty because they are stated in inquisitions post mortem. Since most notable people of the Tudor period held land of the crown by knight service, an inquisition post mortem was taken by officials appointed by the Crown for the purpose, and the date of death of the deceased was invariably stated in the IPM. These IPMs provide dates of death which are accepted by reliable sources. NinaGreen (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  The DNB does not disambiguate its entries. It therefore has no disambiguation policy. We, on the other hand, do commonly use disambiguation and do not use dates to disambiguate unless there really is no alternative. If there really is no other alternative for these two gentlemen, then William Leveson (mercer, died 1593) and William Leveson (mercer, died 1621) would be the normal disambiguation style. There does need to be some indication as to what they were; the date of death alone is fairly meaningless as a disambiguator. However, there is no need to add the date until and unless the article on the second one is created. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. The ODNB does disambiguate its entries (particularly now that's it's online, but it disambiguated by date even before it was online; entries for persons with the same name in the print DNB were arranged chronologically by date of death). I just now typed the surname Stanhope into the online ODNB search window, and got 27 entries on the ODNB disambiguation page, all of which had the person's date of death right after the name, followed by occupation. Looking through the dates, I was immediately able to eliminate all but the entry I wanted on the basis of date of death. Wikipedia users searching for articles on historical personages routinely do that, because they have in mind a person from a particular time period. I think those users would be well served by more articles with titles differentiated by date, particular when it comes to occupations such as mercer, of which there were literally hundreds in the Tudor period. Mercer is not a good disambiguator for that period, nor are many of the other occupations of the period such as merchant, merchant adventurer, goldsmith, merchant tailor, clothworker, etc. There were hundreds of people with those occupations, many with the same names. And as I mentioned, many notable persons of the Tudor period wore so many different occupational 'hats' that it's difficult to choose one as a disambiguator that historians of the period would agree with. Many specific individuals of the Tudor period, for example, were courtiers, soldiers, ambassadors, Members of Parliament, landowners, etc. It's not realistic to pick one of those occupational 'hats' as a disambiguator for a person who wore them all during his lifetime. Date of death works much better. Is there somewhere on Wikipedia where this topic could be discussed by interested editors, perhaps leading to a change in Wikipedia policy? I doubt many editors will see the discussion on this Talk page. NinaGreen (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  You mistake my meaning. The DNB does not disambiguate as we do. If you perform a search you get a list of names, followed by dates and occupation or role for all results. That is not actually title disambiguation. It is simply a list of results similar to our disambiguation pages. We, on the other hand, actually add a disambiguator to our article titles, but only if they need disambiguation. You seem to be proposing a sea change to the way we do things, which has been long established and works very well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  Not a sea change at all. Merely a change for articles on people of the Tudor period because I've done a lot of work on articles dealing with this period, and my experience has been that it doesn't work well for people of the Tudor period, and has resulted in a number of confusing and very inappropriate article titles. Wikipedia is always open to improvement, isn't it? Incidentally, could you direct me to the specific policy section we're discussing? I've looked at the five criteria spelled out in policy at [1], and it seems to me a title with the date of death satisfies all five criteria admirably. Is there some other policy governing the selection of titles which I haven't found, and on which you're basing the claim that using the date of death in a title would be a 'sea change'? NinaGreen (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  WP:NCPDAB. I linked it above. "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."-- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've offered this discussion for a larger audience here in hopes of pulling a wider base of editors to discuss it and reach a consensus. I hope to see you both there. Technical 13 (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Date of Death is not the best choice for disambiguation, it is the easiest in this case, but that does not make the right choice. See s:Author:Socrates for a disambiguation of a similar nature where both birth and death dates are known. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, when dealing with a contemporary similar case a few years ago, we went with George Heriot and George Heriot (died 1610); occupation-based disambiguation wasn't useful here as both were primarily goldsmiths. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. Andrew Gray's comment is very pertinent as an example of an identical problem from the Tudor/early Stuart period. During the Tudor and early Stuart period there were twelve great London livery companies [2] (the Mercers, the Merchant Taylors, the Goldsmiths etc.) and almost everyone who was involved in commercial activity was a member of one of them. In many cases the person didn't actually carry on the trade itself (i.e. a member of the Goldsmiths Company didn't necessarily have a goldsmith's shop) but was merely a member of the Company as a means of carrying on commercial ventures of various kinds. Using 'mercer' or 'tailor' or 'goldsmith' as a disambiguator is thus very misleading. I asked a question above concerning the basis for the claim that Wikipedia article titles can't use dates of death and must use occupations as disambiguators, and no-one has yet provided a link to the alleged policy. Could someone please do that if it exists? All I've been able to find is the policy statement to which I provided a link above, which sets out five criteria which disambiguation by date of death would fully satisfy. NinaGreen (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Does he have a middle name? Does the other Bill Leveson have a middle name? According to your sources, he was also known as William Lewson, was the other Bill known as Lewson? WP:NATURAL suggests these options should be figured out and discussed before parenthetical disambiguation. Technical 13 (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Necrothesp. So the policy is that 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). That clearly means that year of death can be used as a disambiguator where required, as with people of the Tudor period, who are not known for one particular occupational 'hat', but often wear multiple occupational 'hats' and in any event can't be properly distinguished via membership in one of the 12 great livery companies such as the Mercers or Goldsmiths etc., and where dates of birth can't be used as further disambiguators (as per the example) because dates of birth for persons of the Tudor period are rarely known, whereas dates of death are often clearly established in reliable sources. Moreover the policy states that the reason dates of death are not normally used as disambiguators is because readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it. However with people of the Tudor period, readers are more likely to have an approximate date of death in mind than membership in a livery company which had hundreds of members during the Tudor period, and readers are thus going to be much better served with a date of death as a disambiguator for articles on people of the Tudor period. NinaGreen (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course anything can be used, but you have not satisfactorily exhausted all other options that may exist, so at this time this is not appropriate. Technical 13 (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that if there is a worry that someone may not be able to find the article, we have redirect pages for that. The subject can have several pagenames that redirect to the article. Everyone can have their cake and eat it too. Also, I hope that not too much weight is given to how another type of book or website organizes its material. There could be too many counter arguments. For example, the Canadian Encyclopedia regularly lists occupations or other claims to notability before birthdates, and sometimes in the article title, and doesn't seem to use birth or death dates in the titles. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments, Anne. Readers interested in this William Leveson would be primarily looking for him as Shakespeare's trustee in the transfer of shares in the Globe theatre. They might also be looking for him as the person who ran the Virginia Company's first lottery, or as someone who received intelligence reports from abroad for Sir Robert Cecil (which is mentioned in the article). Readers who know about, and are looking on Wikipedia for information about this individual wouldn't be looking for him as a mercer. Moreover although he was a member of the Mercers' Company, there is very little information available on his activities as a mercer, which may have been quite limited. All of which is why I thought that in this case disambiguation by date was appropriate, and Wikipedia policy says it can be used when appropriate. NinaGreen (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps William Leveson (Shakespeare's trustee) would be more agreeable of a new name to all, assuming a page for this "other" William Leveson is ever written? Technical 13 (talk)
  • 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. Or am I missing something? NinaGreen (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, I've taken the liberty of doing that. There is currently a request in to delete the redirect at William Leveson and move this page there. In the future, simply go to the redirect page (pagename&redirect=no) and flagged the page with {{db-move|1= (page to move)|2= (reason for move)}}. Technical 13 (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I had asked at the HelpDesk about the possibility of doing this, so I've left a note there updating them and informing them of this step. NinaGreen (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Someone at the HelpDesk has moved the article to just plain William Leveson. Tempest in a teapot resolved! Now the page move request which got this whole thing started just has to be withdrawn, and this whole thing will be over and done with. NinaGreen (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2013 (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.

Tags

I'm very surprised at the tags which were just now added to this new article by Technical 13 as the article was featured on DYK the other day and was subsequently assessed by a biography project editor who assigned it a C Class status. I'd be happy to respond to any specific concerns here on the Talk page as most of the tag comments are very general in nature. NinaGreen (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

First, I want to note that the tags are not a badge of shame. Next, I want to inform you that it was not a drive-by tagging. I've just joined and am trying to resurrect WP:WikiProject Genealogy. That being said, I'll be working on trying to fix up some of the issues I perceived on this page and would love to ask the biography project editor who assigned it a C Class status some questions. Technical 13 (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've put a lot of work into the article, and I'd appreciate your identifying the specific issues which concern you. I don't think that's a lot to ask. NinaGreen (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

As a casual reader, the article is very technical and hard to read. It has been written very much like an essay, but not the type of essay that tag implies, I'll remove that one. Wasn't what I had thought it was, and it was the first time I used it. The rest of them are in relation to the references, that when followed have no mention of "William Leveson". This leaves the article with out a lot of reliable sources and the factuality of the article becomes questionable because the references are not of what they claim to be. This reason is why I tagged the article in need of a genealogical expert, because I know there have been instances of mis-recording in regards to names back in that time period (I've traced some oddities in my own tree where there was a false name used on a record to evade immigration issues or with birth-dates that are a few years on to be eligible for the military when too young. The last tag about weasel words means there can't be things like "Leveson's will suggests that..." Technical 13 (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's helpful. The phrase "Leveson's will suggests that...." is a paraphrase of what Honigmann, one of the foremost experts on Shakespeare, had to say about the will on p. 88. So I hope you'll remove that tag. Secondly, the sources do mention William Leveson, particularly Honigmann, as you'll see when you click on the link, which will take you right to pp. 87-8 of his Shakespeare: The lost years. And I don't think you can find a more reliable source than Honigmann. So I hope you'll remove that tag. I'll be happy to deal with any further points which concern you. NinaGreen (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the specific reference to that can be more specific like http://books.google.ca/books?id=rKMWPwtV7BoC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87#v=onepage&q=Leveson%27s%20will%20%288%20January%201621%29&f=false which will show the page and highlight the text? Some of that text is hard to read. The way that it is reworded to summarize the text seems poor to me. I'll see if I can come up with a better wording. Honigmann, E.A.J. (1998). Shakespeare: The 'Lost Years' is still only one source. Leveson Gower, Granville (1883). Genealogy of the Family of Gresham and Wisker, Richard (2004). Leveson, Sir John (1555–1615). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (subscription required) have no mention of a "William Leveson" and should be removed unless there is another source that proves that the wrong name is used for Leveson. Technical 13 (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the tags. Unfortunately your comments don't show a grasp of either the content of the article or the references. It is not necessary for every source in an article to mention the subject of the article. For example, Wisker is cited for a very specific fact in the article, and it is obvious from the inline citation what that fact is. There are many articles on Wikipedia which are replete with factual errors, and which are unsourced, and with all due respect I would suggest that you begin by cleaning up a few of those. This article just went through a DYK review before being featured on DYK, and it was then reviewed by a biography project editor who assigned it a C Class status. These are very experienced editors, and I would request that you give their work the respect it deserves. As I've said, there are literally hundreds of Wikipedia articles in need of cleanup in terms of factual errors and sourcing. Please start with those. NinaGreen (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I was in the process of modifying the tags per our discussion here when you reverted them... I've updated them with a new set of tags (some carried through), and would be happy to help work on the article. I just need to add the reason back to the {{Expert-subject}} tag... Technical 13 (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm very much of the view that you should remove all the tags you've just added. You've requested review by 'an expert in Genealogy'. For what reason? Honigmann, one of the foremost experts on Shakespeare, has identified the William Leveson in question. What would an expert in genealogy add to Honigmann's identification? You state that the article needs additional citations for verification. What facts specifically need verifying which haven't already been verified by the reliable sources cited? You claim that the article may be too technical for most readers to understand. The experienced reviewers at DYK did not find it too technical for Wikipedia readers to understand, nor did the biography project reviewer find it too technical for Wikipedia readers to understand. On what basis do you come to your conclusion that it is too technical for most readers to understand? NinaGreen (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I stated the reason in the tag as-well-as in the conversation above. There are references on the page that say nothing about Leveson, and they need to be tied to him properly because I still can't see the connection.

I sense that you are getting defensive, and I understand why you may be. Stop, take a breath, relax a little. I reassure you that I've no intent of destroying your work in anyway. My hopes are to see it improve upon, and I'm willing to help. It is hard for me to do research on the weekends, but I am more than willing to try and find the answers to tie everything together during the week.
You keep coming back to "Honigmann" this and "Honigmann" that. I want to restate that it one source. There needs to be more than just one source that references him, and like I said in the previous paragraph, I intend to help you look for them in the coming week.
"Experienced reviewers at DYK", "biography project reviewer", all somewhat "experts" in their respective fields. My concern is the average Joe. To the "layman" (like myself), this seems to be a fairly technical article, and it may need to be toned down. I am happy to help with that as well.
As a final word for right now, I want to say again, Please try to take a breath and relax, I am NOT here to destroy or degrade your long hours of hard work. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You're taking up a great deal of my time by putting up all these tags without having first provided specifics on the Talk page. My understanding is that the usual (and courteous procedure) is to raise a specific point on the article Talk page and allow all interested editors to discuss that specific point. Perhaps as a result of that discussion (but probably not often) a tag would be put on an article. Instead, you've gone the other way around, and have tagged the article with a large number of tags without providing any specifics at all on the Talk page until I prodded you to do so, after which you removed a few of the tags which shouldn't have been there in the first place. I would again suggest that you remove all the tags, and then provide on the Talk page one specific fact in the article which you feel requires verification. That would be a good starting point because it would clarify the problem, which at the moment is completely vague. NinaGreen (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• WP:PEACOCK
  • "Articles suffering from such language should be rewritten to correct the problem or may be tagged with the {{Peacock}} template."
• WP:WEASEL
  • "Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources, or they may be tagged with the {{Weasel}} template so as to identify the problem to future readers (who may elect to fix the issue)."
• WP:REALTIME
  • "Several templates exist that may be useful to alert readers to time-sensitive wording issues. For example, the template {{When}} is available for editors to indicate when a sentence, or part of one, should be worded more precisely. Additionally the {{out of date}} template may be used when an article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information."
• Template:Technical
  • "This template is used to identify articles or sections featuring excessive jargon, not enough explanation of concepts and too difficult for readers to understand. The article should be edited to be made simpler or the presentation of the topic reworded."
• I could keep going on here, but I think you get the point. The tagging templates are intended to inform whomever may be interested that the article is considered to need help in those areas. According to the policies of the wiki, drive-by taggings are allowed (which this is not because I intend to help correct the problems) although it is noted that "it's useful to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issue, and suggesting an approach to fixing it if you know how." That being said, there is a long section here now that explains my reasoning to each tag. I think these issues can be easily worked through, and I encourage you to help me correct the problems instead of continuing this discussion of being worried there are tags there. If you wish, you may request a 3rd opinion if you wish. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The one thing you're unwilling to do is to identify a specific issue. I've asked you to remove all the tags, and to place on the Talk page one specific fact in the article which requires verification. If there is such an unverified fact in the article (as far as I can see, there isn't), then it would be in order to place a citation needed tag beside that specific fact in the body of the article. But if you cannot identify even one fact in the article which requires verification, then the general references needed tag you've place on the article is totally inappropriate, and contrary to Wikipedia policy. NinaGreen (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the unwarranted tags. The article is well referenced. I can't imagine what an "expert on geneology" would have to contribute. It it not written in a highly technical style. WikiPedia does not need this kind of random and vague nitpicking.--Grahame (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! NinaGreen (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"mercer"?

Was William Leveson and Nicholas Leveson, just a member of the Worshipful Company of Mercers (a "Mercer") or was he a mercer (occupation) (a "mercer") ? The intro sentence, and the Nicholas sentence link to Mercer, but use mercer, so this is imminently confusable as to what is being meant. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)