Talk:William E. Wheelock

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music

Confusion of two men

@FloridaArmy: Please be more careful in your research. You built a Wikipedia:Frankenstein article. The piano manufacturer was the son of Adam Dexter Wheelock (1823–1896), and had the middle name Erving. The physician was the son William Almy Wheelock (1823–1896), and had the middle name Efner. Given the photograph is of the piano manufacturer I have retitled the page and will write an article on that person. It's important not to assume people with the same name are in fact the same person. That is why big picture sources are needed. As regards to furniture collecting, and botany I am not sure which of the two men (or perhaps a third?) was involved in those pursuits. We would need a clear source confirming which W. E. Wheelock was involved in those activities to include it in an article. 4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my mistake User:4meter4! I definitely connected one too many dots. Two William E. Wheelocks with business and music interests in New York City. Glad you caught the mistake and disassembled! I think full names are helpful and help avoid this kind of confusion and overlap. But I trust your judgment. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Title

@FloridaArmy: The secondary sources don't use the middle name. Only the middle initial. Until there is an actual second article on another William E. Wheelock there isn't a need to title by middle name.4meter4 (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for using the full name is clarity. These are not currently famous people and there were two quite notable William E. Wheelocks with quite a bit of overlap in their life stories apart from their names. You noted above my confusion. But the image on commons has the dates of the wrong William E. Wheelock and Findagrave has a picture of the piano manufacturer for the doctor, lawyer, botanist. All the more reason to thank you for sorting the mess out and helping set us all straight. Wikipedia Commons needs correcting as well as Findagrave if anyone is active there or knows how, and I think it's clear we should use full names for these two different people who went by the same name. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy I searched, and the doctor/botanist doesn't have sufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Titling practices are clear that we use the title in reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Article titles and WP:MIDDLENAME. In this case none of the secondary sources use his middle name; only his middle initial. The only reason we know the middle name is because I found his death certificate. That's the only source using the complete middle name. With only a primary source having the full name, we shouldn't use it in the title per our policies.4meter4 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should promote confusion. William E. Wheelock was a notable botanist, collector of furniture, owned a significant home, and had a famous writer son who wrote extensively about him. His life overlaps with another William E. Wheelock we present as the one and only. Not good. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No he was not a notable botanist. There are zero sources discussing his work as a botanist other than society publications of which he was a member. Those are not independent as they are mainly minutes of meetings. There aren't any secondary materials discussing his work. He is included in some lists in secondary books, but this is not WP:SIGCOV. There are no encyclopedia entries on him or reference works about him. There are no WP:SECONDARY sources covering his work in any field. Additionally, there are zero sources discussing his work as a furniture owner. There are provenance listings in sale reports; but those are not significant (they are done for legal reasons to trace the validity of sales and acquisitions to show that works were legally purchased and not illegally obtained through theft etc.). He was the owner of a notable house, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. There are zero sources demonstrating WP:SIGCOV on this person. He isn't encyclopedic, and you aren't going to find support for an article. We have clear title rules here. There isn't a good reason to move this article to another title.4meter4 (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: I note too that there appears to be more confusion with another Dr. William Efner Wheelock who committed suicide in 1902. Some of these sources are about a medical doctor with the exact same name who was a different man (ie not the New Jersey botanist William Efner Wheelock but the Texas medical doctor William Efner Wheelock who also lived in New York state for part of his life). See Caprock Chronicles: Early doctors and hospitals of the South Plains, Part One. We honestly don't have enough material to differentiate who is who, and for that reason an article is a no go because of WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH. We need in-depth WP:SECONDARY coverage and that just doesn't exist for this person. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to note the father of Frank Wheelock, noted https://www.lubbockonline.com/story/news/history/2021/10/16/caprock-chronicles-early-doctors-and-hospitals-south-plains-part-one/5950739001/ here][. At the very least please disambiguate the name.FloridaArmy (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have a famous writer who wrote extensively about his dad. To mislead readers into thinking there is only one prominent person in history with this name is wrong. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy There is currently no reason to disambiguate because we base disambiguation choices off of articles currently in existence. Not theoretical articles. If you disagree follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. However, I think you will be waisting your time. We have clear rules about disambiguation. There is no reason to disambiguate at present, and that move will likely not be supported in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As you know we have articles on John Hall Wheelock and Frank Wheelock where coverage of their father's needs expanding and where we can direct readers appropriately. Pretending their is no alternative but to mislead readers into learning only about one of the three would be wrong. And I al not at all convinced the piano manifacturer is the most notable of the three. The other two have far more significant legacies and continued relevance. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: Is it your habit to make enemies of friends? I'm one of the few editors who is willing to pitch in and work on your drafts, and fix things for you and assist in getting pages ready for article space. I've helped you repeatedly for years now. I would think you would know me well enough by now that I am fair at evaluating topics, and often support you in your efforts. In this case we have several non-notable people with this name who lack sufficient coverage in WP:SECONDARY materials to have stand alone pages. We have WP:DISAMBIGUATION rules and WP:TITLE rules governing what we do with the title of this page. I am merely following those rules. I've already suggested you start a controversial merge proposal as a next step, but throwing around WP:BADFAITH accusations like you are doing is entirely WP:UNCIVIL and is certainly not how you should treat editors who have worked with you productively for a very long time.4meter4 (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with you is not uncovil. I don't agree the botanist and furniture collector is not notable. More needs fleshing out on him and the father of Lubbock's founder. The opening paragraph of the disambiguation page states "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic." Is the name ambiguous? Are there people who share this name that are or should be covered? You are adamant you are correct as is your right. That is your privilege. If you wish to take umbrage that I don't agree that the author of a substantial text on polygala who identified at least two taxons and someone who collected significant furniture and who fathered a major writer and who was a subject of that writer's work as well as an influence on him should be included. Missing pieces and leaving ambiguities is not my forte. You did a wonderful job dofferentiating one of the named people from another but our work is infinished and we need to go the distance for our readers. Please don't attack me for seeking clarity and completeness and for not agreeing with you when you want to leave our work unfinished, amgiguous, and misleading. That wouldn't be appropriate. Taie care and thank for all your help!!! FloridaArmy (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: "Pretending their is no alternative but to mislead readers into learning only about one of the three would be wrong." This is clearly not civil language. You are accusing me of being deceptive, and willfully misleading readers. This is a personal attack. I am not misleading readers. I have determined that there is no evidence supporting that the other people with this name are encyclopedic after having done a WP:BEFORE type search over more than 8 hours of looking through archives. You have yet to demonstrate that these other individuals are notable, and have presented zero evidence of WP:SIGCOV. After having spent several hours searching through various archives, I am convinced they aren't notable. I could locate no sources covering these individuals and their accomplishments in-depth. Being the father of someone famous does not make someone encyclopedic. You claim that the person is author of a substantial text on polygala, but that text is not covered in any independent publications (ie no reviews, no critical commentary, etc.) Merely being published does not make something "substantial". We need independent secondary sources saying something is significant, and I can find no independent writing on anything done by the botanist. You are again free to make a move proposal, but I don't think it is likely to be supported. Attacking editors for disagreements over content is also not helpful. 4meter4 (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]