Talk:William Wood (ironmaster)

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Metalworking Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Numismatics Low‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Platinum

Should that subject be referred to in the bibliography? The article in question only concerns his son Charles, not William. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Patent

Someone should describe this document. Was it specific for a process or just a license to mint for a given territory? 69.72.27.77 (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a royal grant of the right to mint copper money for Ireland. Many kinds of royal grant were by letters patent, not just patents of invention. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stockjobbing share speculation

Is this term - "Stockjobbing share speculation" - a common phrase in British English? If so, it needs some clarifying for non-users of British English (which is otherwise appropriate for the article on a British topic). Perhaps internal links if available. If not, may we please rephrase it in language plainer to the unfamiliar? Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will pick up this one. Initially, I simply reverted it back to "stockjobbing" (from "stockobbing" due to an unconstructive edit). But – you are right – that still left us with an unsatisfactory phrase.

This definition of "stockjobbing" from Investopedia may clear it up:

The buying and selling of securities with the intent of generating quick profits. While most investors seek value through long-term investments, stock jobbing takes on a more speculative short-term tone.

Put that together with the "Later ventures" section from our article:

Later, he sought to exploit patents for iron making processes invented by his son Richard, for which he wanted to incorporate the "Company of Ironmasters of Great Britain", but this proved to be an exercise in stockjobbing. They financed operations by contracting to supply a large quantity of iron to the United Company of Mines Royal and Mineral and Battery Works, but only delivered some 10 tons.

It sounds similar to the modern pump and dump, and I have changed the original phrase in the lead section to reflect that.

Part of the confusion stems from the wikilink of "stockjobbing," which points to stockjobber. That article gives readers only a mundane definition of market makers on the London Stock Exchange, with nothing about the investment scheme. Being neither British nor terribly familiar with William Wood, I cannot comment on the appropriateness of the word "stockjobbing." Should we change the wikilink of "stockjobbing" or include an external link to Investopedia in our article on Wood? —Cheng ✍ 05:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stockjobbing has since been a respectible occupation of being a market maker. In Wood's time it was certainly not. Wood was mixed up with a load of disreputable speculators, who were engaged in various corporate frauds. Wood's activities certain ended up in fraud; whetrher that was his original intention is unclear. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Master of the Mint or just plain mintmaster?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Page moved to William Wood (ironmaster) per the discussion. If the article is expanded, then it might we worth revisiting this action to see if it is still correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Wood (Mintmaster) → William Wood (mintmaster) —

Unless "Mintmaster" was William Wood's official title and not just his occupation, the clarifier in the article title should be lowercased.

From my reading of the article, the only pertinent position was "Master of the Mint," which Wood was not. Here's why:

Wood minted his coins in 1722. Issac Newton was Master of the Minter from 1700–1727.
In the lead section, "mintmaster" is set in lowercase. Furthermore, that term links to moneyer, not Master of the Mint.

If Wood really was Master of the Mint, let's call him that like we did with Edward Villiers (Master of the Mint). Otherwise, barring any objections, this page should be moved to William Wood (mintmaster). —Cheng ✍ 06:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What is a "mintmaster" other than a Master of the Mint? If "mintmaster" pipes to moneyer in the body, wouldn't a better title be William Wood (moneyer)? Station1 (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the highest officer of the Royal Mint, the Master of the Mint held broad powers. Issac Newton, among his other achievements in this role, personally collected evidence to prosecute counterfeiters. William Wood had no such responsibility; he merely obtained an exclusive contract to manufacture coins for the government.

I am all for using the common term, but I am not convinced moneyer is better. Just as Master of the Mint was a British office, moneyer appears to be a chiefly classical Roman term. How about the simpler minter? —Cheng ✍ 22:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is better than moneyer. Or coiner? Station1 (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"coiner" suggests the crime of coining, of which Wood was not guilty, since his propduction of coins was under a royal patent. However, he was not master of the mint, or mintmaster. His occupation had been as an ironmonger before he started on his grand speculations, two of whcih were as an ironmaster. I would thus suggest William Wood (ironmaster). However the presetn version should be retained as a redirect. I have been engaged in primary research on the subject, and will add to the articel in due course (with citations). Peterkingiron (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.