Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Well, the RMs are popping up & a few unilatteral page moves have begun, in these last few weeks. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have. And quite frankly, this is becoming a matter beyond which an RfC at this time can resolve. Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC), last edited 18:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this section has not been archived yet, I would like to write the following for future records:

1. Count this post as a retraction of my WP:WALLOFTEXT and !vote above. Honestly, looking back, I am embarrassed that I even thought about writing something so long.
2. As of this post, I am no longer as passionate about this issue as I was then, especially considering WP:REDIRECTS will help navigate readers from plausible title alternatives.
3. It is quite evident I misread the RfC prompt at the time (in my zeal to defend WP:CONSISTENT). As I understand it now, the prompt was simply asking whether a guideline should be added to allow titles like Elizabeth II in the situations where it would be appropriate to do so (as opposed to a blanket elimination of the Name of Country format). In this context, I would have !voted yes. (I am unsure if !votes can be retroactively counted, but if so, please note this.)
4. My interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:AT at the time was far more rigid than what I have since seen from other editors. I no longer hold such a strict interpretation.
5. Finally, as my edits since this RfC closure show, I am much better at avoiding WP:TLDR.

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the RfC about changing this guideline to endorse concise titles such as Elizabeth II, I have proposed several moves regarding articles about English kings (from Edward I to Edward V). Please see Talk:Edward I#Requested move 5 November 2023. Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well this push to eliminate "of country" from monarch bios page titles, is certainly in full swing. I'm guessing, heirs-apparent/presumptive & others in line of succession, will be next. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a bit of a slippery slope. 2601:249:9301:D570:8D44:DAF4:3F4B:EDC7 (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the consorts. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's dukes, counts et al. When are they going to be trimmed? But apparently those titles can stay, unless they're Italian for some reason?

I regret not realizing this RFC was on at the time. I would have opposed it vigorously. What a disaster it is wreaking. Walrasiad (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoodDay - I think the moral shown is ‘Do not discard long-embedded practices.’ It just winds up being an incomplete change and directly degrades respect for the guidelines. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a plethora of monarchical names being closed over the strong opposition of the community, citing the recently-changed RFC above. This is causing severe disruption of long-stable article titles across Wikipedia.

The recent closure of the RM on Ferdinand VI of Spain over vigorous and overwhelming opposition seems to indicate that wider community opinion is not in line with the recently-changed guidelines. Neither I, nor many others, were aware nor participated in this RFC.

Most of these pages has been stable for 20 years - never proposed to move. That is an indicator of wider community consensus than the few people that happen to monitor the NCROY page. The RfC change slipped through on a 12-8 vote. The Ferdinand VI of Spain was opposed on 8-3, a bigger margin. It seems to me anomalous that a small group can engineer and overturn a long-term wider community consensus by ramming through a change in a guideline page, that affects a massive amount of pages, destabilizing Wikipedia and overriding long-standing community consensus. The wider community's opinion should not be treated as irrelevant because it was not expressed in the right location and right time.

It has been recommended that I should take this up here. So I would request the RFC be re-opened, and the matter revisited, so the wider community can participate. Walrasiad (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is welcome to open a new RfC at any time. I would however note that RfCs and RMs are not about counting votes but weighing up policy-based arguments, as exemplified in the closer's rationale: Based on the strength of argument from existing policy [...] there is a strong consensus to adopt the proposal. Likewise, for the specific example you mention (Ferdinand VI), the closer noted that none of the Oppose votes are actually based in policy.

The fact that the majority of recent RMs to remove "of country" have passed is itself a strong indicator of community consensus, opposition notwithstanding. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the last RfC take place? Here? Then, I think any new RfCs should be opened at a place when the wider community can contribute, not just people who are interested in WP:NCROY guidelines. This new set of guidelines is affecting WP:TITLECON in many instances, which is a policy. Keivan.f^Talk 14:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced a new RfC is justified, but agree that if one is held, it should be notified to relevant prominent places such as WT:AT or WT:BIOG to get wider input. I also agree with User:Srnec below that a pre-RfC discussion would be highly advisable before embarking on a widely publicised RfC.

Incidentally, WP:TITLECON is an essay, not a policy. Did you perhaps mean WP:CONSISTENT? Rosbif73 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need to reconsider the NCROY change, particularly given the contentiousness and lack of consensus apparent in the spate of RMs it's prompted. I also agree that greater participation would be extremely helpful, since (again as the RMs suggest) the wider community doesn't seem to be nearly as on-board. Though a bit cumbersome, mass pings to the participants of RMs associated with the change might be good. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support a new RFC, but I think we should have a pre-RFC discussion to identify the issues that need sorting and if there is perhaps a middle ground position, since I doubt there is community support for moving, e.g., Elizabeth II anywhere. Srnec (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is one of those situations where neither extreme — nation on all or nation on none that are unambiguous — will give us the optimal results. The former would mean moving Liz, and you’re right that that’s probably a non-starter; the latter would mean keeping the nation off of even lesser-known monarchs, which the contentiousness and only scattershot success of recent RMs shows is also not working. The most successful path is probably going to be a compromise somewhere in the middle. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The RFC should be reopened. There's no shame in RFCs that make the wrong call due to an accidentally skewed turnout or the like, but when an RFC maybe made the wrong call, then a reconfirmation RFC is merited. I don't really want to be the one to spearhead it myself. But this is something where the needs of readers needs to come first and requires wide input, so should probably be advertised on CENT.
  • As a side procedural comment, @Rosbif73:, the whole point of RFCs is indeed to change policy. So an argument of "it's against policy" is meaningless here - RFCs are how policy is set, reflecting community consensus. And I'd argue it can hardly be argued the old RFC showed great consensus behind it, as its RMs have been radioactively controversial every time. I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, just the sheer raw fact that it created this has to be acknowledged, which doesn't happen for truly non-controversial changes. SnowFire (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding the procedural comment: NCROY is not a policy, it is a guideline, supposed to set out best practices for applying policy. A guideline must comply with policy, and an RfC about a guideline must take policy into account. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the post-RFC multiple RMs in progress & closed. It appears the RFC-in-question's decision, isn't proving to be easily applied. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose further discussion of this matter - I will defer readers to what I have written on what I have posted on the WP:ROYALTY talk page. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewPeterT I am going to reply here. You quote WP:COI: "Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns. It is the interest of readers that is precisely what is driving the concerns about this. Because most do not see this change as beneficial to readers, but rather as detrimental to them. This RFC was driven through by a handful of royal enthusiasts who happen to watch this page. It ignored the wider Wikipedia community, and did not take the interests of readers into consideration. That is what needs to be addressed.

I should also remind that this concern and a revision of NCROY was recommended by those who upheld the Ferdinand VII closure. Walrasiad (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The inconsistencies among the monarch pages, continues to grow. Isabella II of Spain got moved to Isabella II & now is about to be moved to Isabel II. At the moment we've got Ferdinand VII (which was previously Ferdinand VII of Spain). Will that page 'next' be moved to Fernando VII? -- GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it won't. Monarch's names were systematically translated until the mid-to-late 19th century, but rarely thereafter. Reliable English-language sources continue to refer to him as Ferdinand, so no change is needed. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it will. Nationalism is a perennial poison in Wikipedia history articles, and should never be underestimated. It has only been by watchfulness and strenuous effort that it has been prevented to nativize all monarchical names, and keep their recognizable English translations. Defenders of readers and accessibility will eventually be worn down by dogged nationalists eager to propound their unique spellings of "their" monarchs. Walrasiad (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still at loss as well, concerning intros to current queens consort. Most use just the one name, except for the current queen consort of Spain. But that's another 'inconsistency' topic. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am getting extremely fed up of articles on the ENGLISH Wikipedia getting moved to non-English names. Royalty and nobility articles are extremely inconsistent in the titling of their pages. On Wikipedia, the title of all monarchs' articles used to be "Name of [country]". Nowadays, different articles, very particularly those of the Spanish and Danish monarchs, have dropped the "of [country]". Why? The reason that "of the United Kingdom" is not included after British monarchs is because this is the English Wikipedia and for much of the English-speaking world (the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.), the British monarchs are the monarchs! Not Isabella II or Frederik X. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a UK centric point of view you have! This is English language Wikipedia yes but it's not UK or Commonwealth Wikipedia. The reason Elizabeth II for example doesn't have "of the United Kingdom" is because there is only one primary article, there's no need for a disambiguator - not because "the British monarchs are the monarchs". You'll notice for example the article for Henry I is Henry I of England because there is Henry I of Austria, Henry I of France, Henry I of Cyprus etc.

Regarding the "non-English names", people do have names that aren't English. Names aren't typically translated and Wikipedia should not be assigning people new names based on an arbitrary translation. D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's right though. The only reason Elizabeth II is shortened is because of British nationalism (or rather Canadian nationalism - this whole mess started because of a dumb quarrel a couple of years ago between British & Canadian editors, the latter of whom took umbrage at the suggestion that Canada was being subordinated by having the title "of the United Kingdom". So their only resolution was to omit it entirely). Walrasiad (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is hardly a fair summary of the RfC that led to Elizabeth II's article title being shortened. The fact that she was queen of other realms was indeed raised, but what you are calling "nationalism" was actually based in policy, namely compliance with WP:NPOV. Other policy-based rationale also contributed to the decision to override the guideline as it stood at the time.

Similarly, the question of whether monarch's names should be translated is nothing to do with nationalism. Modern practice in general is to keep the "native" spelling of given names, but not to change the spelling of names that entered the English-language history books in translated form. Wikipedia follows that practice by referring to people by the name under which they are commonly known in reliable English-language sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is not her common name. Nobody calls her simply "Elizabeth II" (certainly not outside of Britain). She is at the very least "Queen Elizabeth II" (even if that is also the name of a ship), and Britain is almost always mentioned (if not in context). So by the common name criteria she should be at least "Queen Elizabeth II", not "Elizabeth II", just like we have "Pope John Paul II" not "John Paul II".

But early on, Wikipedia NCROY decided to not include titles like "king" and "queen" in article titles (unless they're solo, e.g. "John, King of England"). Instead, we decided that we can omit king/queen and leave only "of country" in the NCROY, feeling that is sufficient to identify the royal in the article title. That has been the norm for the past 20 years. And that worked very well for readers for the past 20 years.

This recent shortening change started as nationalism and has been driven by nationalism, joined by royalist aficionados and aesthetic minimalists, with little or no regard for Wikipedia readers, whose needs are being disregarded and left in the dust.

None of these shortenings are helpful to readers, but all are to serve the agendas of editors. That is the unfortunate reality of Wikipedia articles - and especially marring in history articles. If we have to pretend the British "Charles III" is somehow special because it satisfies the self-regard of British nationalists or royalist geeks, then we'll have to figure out a way to work with that. If that is necessary to contain the damage being done across Wikipedia, it is a compromise we'll have to consider. Walrasiad (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spitballing a compromise:

• If the title is completely unambiguous (e.g. Edward V, because there are zero articles titled Edward V of <Different Country>), we drop the <Country>.
• If the title is utterly primary, use the shortened form (e.g. someone at Nicholas II is not looking for Nicholas II of Saint-Omer, someone at Charles III is not looking for Charles III of Anjou; and people are almost certainly not looking for something named after the monarch).
• Otherwise, use {Name} {Number} of {Country}.
• I think we should explicitly note that this is preemptive disambiguation, and thus WP:CONSISTENT does not control (just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City). For example, Jimbo II should not be at Jimbo II of Wikipedia solely because of how Jimbo I of Wikipedia is titled. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a compromise? That seems just like a restatement of the currently modified NCROY? Walrasiad (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intended difference is the "utterly" part. Namely, it would need to be more than "merely" a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and the burden would be on people dropping the country to show it is unnecessary). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how would they do that? What exactly is the difference between "utterly" and "non-utterly"? Walrasiad (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is really a I know it when I see it thing (and I would be interested to see if you have a bright-line rule in mind?). Probably not for even Mary I of England. What I am trying to get at is the difference between cases like Mary and Elizabeth II. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" was moved to "Elizabeth II" a few years ago, due to some editors not liking the UK getting top billing over their own countries. It was like the umpteenth RM held on that matter, until they got their own way. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the joys of relentless nationalism. Walrasiad (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-conflict: A bright-line rule I'd prefer is dropping country only for popular household names. So that would fit Louis XIV of France, but not Edward V of England. (with the stipulation that it includes households "outside of the country of origin" - so a Romanian monarch which may be a household name in Romania but not outside of Romania wouldn't cut it.) Walrasiad (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with that replacing my "utterly" suggestion. I still think there is no reason for completely unambiguous (not just a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but when e.g. Edward V (disambiguation) is a redlink) to use of {Country}. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that "utterly primary" and "popular household name" are both somewhat subjective, and the latter is also likely to raise worldview issues. Many readers will be utterly familiar with British monarchs and see them as household names going back centuries, whereas many other readers won't have a clue who the same monarchs are. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I included the stipulation "outside of country of origin". British monarchs may be familiar to British households, but not necessarily to non-British. The burden of proof would be to show it used that way in non-British sources. Walrasiad (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the mess gets worse. This RFC is proving inoperable. "Necessary disambiguation" is apparently in the eye of the beholder. We now have an eager editor spamming RMs, declaring French kings are "primary topic" over Swedish kings. Big countries are "more important" than small countries. So France doesn't need disambiguation, only Sweden does. And why not? Who cares about Sweden? It has only 10 million people, France has 70 million. And a lot more people are interested in French history than Swedish history. Swedes don't really matter.

This NCROY shortening nonsense is asking Wikipedia editors to pick which countries are "important" and which are "not important", it is introducing prejudices of "big countries" over "small countries". This is not something Wikipedia should be doing. This NCROY is not only opening the door to nationalist POVs, now we are now adding imperialist POVs into the mix. A curious but inevitable result of a poorly-thought out NCROY. This really needs to revised.

Deciding which country is or is not important is not the kind of judgment calls we should be making. Indeed, one of the great benefits of retaining "of country" in the titles in NCROY was precisely that it puts all on an equal neutral NPOV level. We won't get drawn into the unsavory nationalist-imperialist games of deciding whether France is more important than Sweden, whether Britain more important than Georgia, whether Russia more important than Ukraine. Walrasiad (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least personally, I don't see it as a question of which countries have primacy over others. I see it as a question of which individuals are most commonly known by a given name, in line with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is effectively the same thing. "Charles IX of France" is much better known than "Charles IX of Sweden", simply because France (and French history) is bigger. So it is asking us to pick countries, giving bigger ones primacy over small ones. Walrasiad (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question of making judgement calls about monarchs or countries. Whether or not a primary topic exists for a given name, and if so which one, are determined based on objective criteria set out and agreed by the community at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Different countries are often primary for different ordinals, e.g. the UK is for Charles III, France for Charles X, Sweden for Charles XI... Rosbif73 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What "objective" criteria? Its all contextual. In books on Swedish history, Charles IX of Sweden is primary, in books on French history, Charles IX of France is primary. There happen to be far more books on French history than Swedish history because France is a much bigger country. So your "objectivity" is merely appealing to (and reinforcing) POV prejudices about certain countries being more important than others. This is not something Wikipedia should be doing. Walrasiad (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Paris should be moved to Paris, France? Because it's discriminatory to prioritise the French city over the countless other places with the name Paris or the mythological figure? UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally support re-opening the RfC. Too many of these controversial moves have been closed by non-admins who have claimed they are enforcing the guidelines whilst ignoring the guideline that says they shouldn't be closing controversial discussions. Then they can expect support from other non-admins and this is apparently enough to overcome the real consensus in the actual discussion. It should be obvious that there is more than one guideline involved and one such guideline shouldn't take precedence over all others. Otherwise it would be a policy, not a guideline. Deb (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the guideline is biased towards Europe as is most of Wikipedia, and restricts its coverage of non-European monarchs to a few bullet points essentially saying "there is no convention, look at WP:AT", I think this guideline's title should be changed to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (European royalty and nobility). Thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note for the record, I have responded to this proposal here: diff AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SOVEREIGN point 2 says "Use the most common, unambiguous name," and point 3 says "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed." Sometimes, the most common name in English sources uses a territorial designation. Point 3 should be changed to "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed or the name with the territorial designation is the most commonly recognizable name in line with WP:COMMONNAME. --JFHutson (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it contradicts. Because the November RfC that changed the wording was a poorly-thought-through disaster. And needs to be revised. Walrasiad (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BOLDly addressed. Good? —В²C ☎ 23:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that this change leaves SOVEREIGN even more open to interpretation and dispute. Do we have any actual examples of sovereigns whose regnal name would be unambiguous without a territorial designation but whose common name unequivocally includes one? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not offhand, but I don’t see why that’s relevant. With or without the clarification I added, and you reverted, the same WP:CRITERIA apply, just as they do for any other titles:

• If the subject’s most common name is unique, or is ambiguous but for which the subject is primary, then that’s the title. Otherwise we disambiguate.

That applies equally regardless of what the COMMONNAME is, including whether it includes “of country”.

Let’s not get confused by the fact that adding “of country” is often how we disambiguate these titles, when disambiguation is necessary.

None of this is affected at all by whether “we have any actual examples of sovereigns whose regnal name would be unambiguous without a territorial designation but whose common name unequivocally includes one”. So why are you asking for such examples? And why does the ability to produce such have anything to do with the clarification I added and you reverted? In other words:

If a sovereign’s most common name includes a territorial designation,

then that would be the title, even if their regnal name without such designation is unique.

Otherwise, territorial designation is included only if needed for disambiguation.

Whether there are any actual examples of sovereign’s with most common names that include territorial designations is besides the point. Maybe there are none… then we always use territorial designation only for disambiguation. Maybe there are a few… then we include the territorial designation in those titles respectively. 🤷‍♂️ Either way the same language is just as effective. В²C ☎ 12:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, as I see it, is that people will then argue (and indeed already have attempted to argue in some recent RMs) over whether the common name of a particular monarch includes the "of country" or not. In other words, your bold change merely diluted the general "use the territorial designation only for disambiguation" intent of last November's RfC. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not dilution. It’s clarification. After all, “use the territorial designation only for disambiguation" means “use the territorial designation only for disambiguation of the subject’s COMMONNAME when disambiguation is necessary because the COMMONNAME is ambiguous and this use is not primary for it.”

Regarding the need to argue about which is the COMMONNAME, good. That’s what title decision-making should be focused on: determining which is the COMMONNAME based on usage in RS. And the CONCISION razor settles any ties. —В²C ☎ 19:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Adding hyphens to French personal names. Ham II (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) - RfC drafting for reversion of the November 2023 change. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs. Although previous participants in related discussions have been pinged, others who watch these guidelines may also be interested. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay: Thank you for your contribution to the article. I noticed that you have reverted my edit regarding the title of the baronage section. I'd like to understand your reasoning for not following the general article titling policy in this case.

Could you please explain why you believe the baronage titles should not adhere to the standard titling conventions used throughout the rest of the article? I'm happy to discuss this further so we can reach an agreement. Daniel Plumber (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread my edit summary. We should follow the general article titling policy. There is no need for a separate convention. DrKay (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, you are right. My apologies.

Regarding this, I think I would have to disagree with you there:

"The dignity of baron is protected by the Scotland Act 2000 and recognised by the Crown as a title of nobility with the status of minor baron. The title Baron of X becomes part of the legal name as a title of nobility and is included in British passports for official documents."

Baronage titles, due to legal precedent and being titles of nobility, as a rule should follow peerage format on Wikipedia. Moreover, the distinctive natures of these titles (Baron of X as opposed to Baron X in England/Ireland and recognised by the Lord Lyon as forming part of the name, similar to territorial designations) make it necessary to be separately noted, and not just following general policy. Daniel Plumber (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if we're talking about titles in the Baronage following the peerage convention or the general convention. If the former, it should in my opinion be stated clearly in the naming convention. If the intention on the other hand is to treat these titles differently, I would warn against it: Treating the Scottish baronage differently to that of the the rest of the British nobility could lead to inconsistencies in how British nobility is portrayed. We need to be really, really careful to avoid Anglocentric bias on Wikipedia.

AFAIK, these titles are included in the holder's passport. Upon ascending to a title, the holder's surname is changed to include the territorial designation. It would require some really strong arguments should we have a fixed policy to ignore this.

I would certainly suggest a default policy in line with that of other British peerages, with exceptions only where the individual is clearly not known publicly by the title. For Chiefs and Chieftains and many other Barons, the title is literally how they are known to their followers and others. Charliez (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use legal names, and because baronages can be bought and sold as property some of the owners aren't British, so they don't have British passports. British passports also include other titles, such as 'Doctor', 'Professor', 'Ms', etc. in the same field as that used for baronages and we don't include these on wikipedia, nor should we. The 'Observation' field of the passport is not the person's legal name. It is a descriptor. DrKay (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The points you raised are valid, but I don't believe they sufficiently address the question of why baronage titles should be excluded. By convention, Scottish barons are addressed in a similar manner to peerage titleholders, they are recognised as "titled nobles" under Scots law, and they occupy a place in the Scottish order of precedence.

Unless there is a compelling argument for denying the status of Scottish barons, I don't think it would be appropriate to apply an "Anglocentric perspective" on Scottish nobility, as the above editor noted. The Scottish nobility system is far more complex than the rest of the United Kingdom. Daniel Plumber (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay and fellow editors, thank you for the ongoing discussion. I appreciate the perspectives shared and believe it's important to find a solution that respects both Wikipedia's guidelines and the unique nature of Scottish baronage titles.

@DrKay has raised valid points regarding the consistency of titling across Wikipedia. However, I believe the edit that was reverted deserves reconsideration due to the distinct historical and legal status of Scottish baronage titles.

The edit in question was:

"Titles in the Baronage of Scotland as a rule follow the peerage format above. The Scottish baronage predates the peerage and coexists to this day. The dignity of baron is protected by the Scotland Act 2000 and recognised by the Crown as a title of nobility with the status of minor baron. The title Baron of X becomes part of the legal name as a title of nobility and is included in British passports for official documents. The most famous baronial title holder is Prince William holding the title of Baron of Renfrew. There are around 30 Scottish clan chiefs who are also barons, styled in the baronial format. For example, Lorne Maclaine, Baron of Moy or Peregrine Moncreiffe of that Ilk, Baron of Moncreiffe."

The fact that the heir to the British throne—Prince William—holds the title of Baron of Renfrew highlights the continued relevance and recognition of these titles.

In comparison, there are many foreign holders of peerage titles that don't live in Britain, to name few:

Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester (Australian)

Filippo Giambattista Rospigliosi, 12th Earl of Newburgh (Italian)

Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun (Australian)

Peter St John, 9th Earl of Orkney (Canadian)

Nevinson de Courcy, 36th Baron Kingsale (New Zealander, and possibly has never visited Britain)

In their Australian, Canadian, NZ, and Italian passports, their titles of nobility are not recorded, but this does not diminish the recognition or importance of their titles within British nobility. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that we alter the way these titles are presented on Wikipedia based on their passport status.

Regarding British passports, there is an important distinction between "THE HOLDER IS ALSO KNOWN AS" and "THE HOLDER IS." The former is used for a stage name or foreign title, that are not officially recognised as part of the legal name. In contrast, "THE HOLDER IS" refers to the UK-recognised full legal name, including nobility title, which is verified through HMPO’s review of a Lord Lyon letters patent (the monarch's representative in Scotland decreeing the holder's legal name with baronial title for all official purposes) or a Burke's Peerage genealogical profile that verifies the same. This is a significant recognition by the Crown, reflecting the legal and noble status of the title. Moreover, to have "Doctor" added to the observation field, evidence is required—observations are not taken at face value without verification.

However, this is not about professional titles like 'doctor' or 'professor.'

The focus here is on guidelines for titles of nobility on wikpipedia. Scottish baronage titles, which are hereditary titles of nobility recognised by the Crown as noble and ranking below a Lord of Parliament but above a Scottish Laird in the British system. As Sir Thomas Innes of Learney noted, Scottish Barons have historically been considered equivalent to Continental barons, underscoring their significance.

While it’s true that baronial titles can be bought and sold, the market for selling barony titles is a tiny one - there might only be 1 or 2 sales a year sometimes none and multiple years of no sales - they're actually nearly impossible to buy as they're not for sale at any price from these families in most cases. The current holders are not selling they're family heirlooms. For example, there are some 30 scottish clan chiefs that are barons. Some of the titles come with hereditary offices like Sheriff or Constable of a Castle, pageantry and ceremony of state. Some had historic power over life and death with criminal courts. Some still today operate a Baron's court with officers appointed like a Barron Ballie that can can get a special coat of arms from lyon etc and hold civil courts and a lot of charitable community involvement.

Additionally, there are more Scottish barons who own gentry estates than Scottish peers, with hereditary titles typically attached to these estates, ensuring they are passed down through the generations.

Returning to the main point, the topic in question is not the legal name of a baronage title holder, but rather the title of nobility itself, which predates the Scottish peerage and coexists to this day. It is a respected, honorable rank within the nobility, with the baronage being one of the original three estates of Scotland. Therefore, just like Scottish Clan Chiefs, I believe Scottish barons are notable on Wikipedia. This important cultural history is valued and should, as a rule, follow the peerage style format on Wikipedia, mirroring British society.

Given these factors, I suggest that Scottish baronage titles should of course follow the peerage format on Wikipedia, reflecting their noble status and historical significance. This approach would not only preserve the integrity of the titles but also ensure that we accurately represent the rich tapestry of British nobility, avoiding any unintentional Anglocentric bias as @Daniel Plumber @Charliez rightly points out.

To address this more comprehensively, it may be worth considering the creation of a dedicated project page for the Baronage of Scotland, akin to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clans_of_Scotland. This would allow for a more focused effort in documenting the histories and significance of these titles, ensuring that they are presented with the context and respect they deserve.

I encourage others to share their thoughts on this, as a consensus that reflects the broader community's view will be crucial in guiding how we move forward. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with your points. The edit we're discussing seems quite comprehensive to me and, I believe, establishes a style of address that aligns these Scottish titles with other British titles.

In my opinion, a compelling argument (beyond avoiding discrimination against traditional Scottish titles) is that many of these barons are primarily known by their traditional titles, making it logical to use those titles when naming articles. I'd support reversing the removal of this policy. Charliez (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC) — Charliez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I support including the Scottish Baronage as a separate entry on this list. I am deeply uncomfortable discriminating against these traditional Scottish titles. Alvise Figà Talamanca (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC) — Alvise Figà Talamanca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

gentle DrKay, I am new to wikipedia and I am registered with my name, I made a comment in a topic in which I am very interested for personal reason, that I can demonstrate, but really I don't understand what meatpuppets mean. Can you please explain, is it a welcome to new users as per wikipedia policy? Thanks in advance for the kind answer Alvise Figà Talamanca (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can read here: WP:MEATPUPPET D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from that page: The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute.

Regarding the allegation, I want to reassure everyone that I have not been recruited by anyone, and I am not involved with multiple accounts. I am participating in this discussion independently.

I have provided my opinion at length and in a professional and courteous manner, carefully addressing each of @DrKay's concerns - who also appears to be (currently) the only user in the thread against the consensus. Consensus building is a fundamental part of Wikipedia, and the fact that multiple users agree with my point of view should not be dismissed or met with accusations. Instead, I encourage a continued focus on the content of the discussion and a constructive approach to resolving any disagreements. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note on @DrKay's talk page to which I haven't yet had a reply. While I understand the concerns meatpuppet cause, I believe it may not be entirely fair to tag a 20-year-old account that posts on a variety of subjects as both a meatpuppet and a Single Purpose Account.

While contributors will always have some bias for certain subjects or editorial directions, I always aim to approach topics with an independent and neutral perspective. Agreement over an editorial direction is not in itself a sufficient indicator of "meatpuppet" accounts. I certainly do not consider myself a puppet... Charliez (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When multiple accounts make the same false ignorant claim, that is highly indicative that they are the same editor. It is unlikely that so many editors would make an identical error. The title Baron is not part of the legal name for Scottish feudal barons. It can only be recorded in the Observations field of the passport not the field for legal name. This is explicit in the government guidelines. Only members of the House of Lords and knights and dames can record titles in the name field. See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/titles-included-in-passports/titles-accessible#bookmark121. Scottish feudal barons are only permitted a territorial designator (such as "of that Ilk"). They are not permitted the title of Baron anywhere other than the Observation field, which is the same field used for stage names and professional titles. Scottish feudal baronies are not the same as peerages. They are commodities not honours. DrKay (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay, thank you for your clarification. Your comments make more sense to me when considered in the context you describe. However, I believe you might have misread the HMPO guidelines. Please see: Titles in Passports https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/titles-included-in-passports/titles-accessible. It clearly states under Scottish feudal baronies: "The correct form will be for their surname to change to include the territorial designation as part of their surname. For example: Surname: (surname) of (territorial designation) Forename: (forenames)." This is the current practice, and I think this may explain why multiple users have shared the same opinion.

As I mentioned, my account is 20 years old and has contributed to a wide range of topics. Although I may not have posted frequently, and while you may be a significant contributor to this site (for which we are all grateful), I believe I should be allowed to hold an opinion contrary to yours as long as it is discussed in a sensible manner and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Charliez (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay I would kindly ask you to reconsider your statement, as I am not involved with multiple accounts. I believe this accusation is unfair and detracts from the constructive nature of this discussion. Please refer back to my message above regarding British passports, which you seem to have overlooked. I would appreciate it if you could review my previous response before replying again.

HMPO reviews a Lord Lyon letters patent (the monarch's representative in Scotland) decreeing the holder's legal name, including the baronial title for all official purposes. This document, as demonstrated here [link: http://www.scotarmigers.net/ssagallery/albums/userpics/10001/lindsay-grant.jpg], confirms the baronial title as part of the legal name. Btw this is only issued if the Lord Lyon judges if the person is a virtuous and deserving person.

The reason the title is not in the surname field is simply due to space limitations, especially when a territorial designation is involved. To provide an example, as you reference peers, they also have "THE HOLDER IS John Jason Smith, Duke of London" in the observation field, with the title "Duke of London" in the surname field. The family name "Smith," though not in the main personal details page, still remains part of their legal name—it's just placed in the observation field due to space constraints.

With all due respect, I believe it is important to fully consider the points I’ve raised. This conversation should remain focused on factual information and collaborative discussion. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on re-reading your comment I see that you're specifically talking about the word "baron" not the "of X". This is correct, but I would certainly consider "of Townsname" a title. Charliez (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peers don't have territorial designations, while all Scottish Baronets have territorial designations, and a mixture of Scottish Barons have them. However, HMPO don't make a distinction and apply a territorial designation to all barons - hence the spacing issue. It doesn't mean Baron of X is not their legal title. Much in the same for a peer it doesn't mean their family name is not part of their legal name. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't really care about what HMPO has to say (although both you and fellow editors made valid points) because in Wikipedia we do not use legal names. If a person is known as a baron, they should be accorded baron of the realm. Period.

As you know, Wikipedia is not a circus, yet pure comedy gold comes from you. It's not just comedy gold, but also a pure blatant hoax from you. You say a barony, which was granted in the same manner as peerage titles (by the Charter of the Great Seal of Scotland), the only difference being that it is assignable (remainder to heirs and assignees), is not an honour? You do know that baronies were granted as a gift of the king to loyal vassals. How on earth is it, not an honour, as you say? If by "honour" you mean recent gifts from the sovereign, it may fit into the "dignity" category, but again, most hereditary peerage titles would fit into the "dignity" category too.

And about "commodities," may I ask what proprietary rights/interests do baronies have? As far as I know, nothing. All rights were stripped away in the 2004 Act, retaining only the dignity of the baron. Now, some of you might say, "oh, it can be sold, so it must bring some monetary value to the soon-to-not-be-a-baron anymore." If you give something to someone, you get something in return. That's basic logic - no one's going to be rich by selling their own baronies. Unless you have any authoritative scholarly sources that state Scottish baronies aren't honours but commodities instead, your assertion would still not be entertained. I'm confident I have some that say otherwise.

Need I remind you all that no one has been able to make counter-arguments against my previous contentions? Therefore, I remain entitled to my view. Daniel Plumber (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested text says "The title Baron of X becomes part of the legal name as a title of nobility and is included in British passports for official documents." but the source given to support this[2], section "Scottish feudal baronies" doesn't support this: their legal name will change from "John Smith" to "John Smith of Glenfiddich", not "John Smith, Baron of Glenfiddich" ("Surname: (surname) of (territorial designation) Forename: (forenames)"), and the "baron of" part is only in the observations, not in the name. Fram (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of not repeating myself, I want to reiterate that I have already addressed this issue above. The legal name, including the title "Baron of X," is granted by a previous monarch and the current holder gets recognised by the Crown through the Lord Lyon (the letters patent example link I shared above), and this title is an official part of the individual's legal name. The reason the title "Baron of X" appears in the Observation field of a passport, rather than the surname field, is due to space constraints of territorial designations. For example, "Livingston of Bachuil, Baron of the Bachuil" or "Agasim-Pereira of Fulwood and Dirleton, Baron of Fulwood and Dirleton" are too long to fit in the surname field, which is why the full legal name is placed in the Observation field.

As I mentioned earlier, this does not diminish the legal recognition of the title by the Crown. If you review my previous comments, you'll also see that peers often also have their family name in the Observation field, yet it remains part of their legal name (I know this because I've gone into contract with peers they use their family name with their full name and title). This distinction in the Observation field for stage names or UK-recognised full legal name is important, and I’ve explained it in detail in my previous responses.

However, I do acknowledge that the discussion about passport entries may be a distraction from the main issue of reaching consensus on the edit in question. If the passport comment is creating confusion or contention, I am happy to suggest a compromise: we could remove the reference to passports and leave the rest of the proposed edit intact. As @DrKay has already noted, Wikipedia does not necessarily follow legal names, even though the baron title is legal. Therefore, removing the passport mention could help keep the conversation focused on the primary issue.

The consensus here is that the Scottish baron edit should be reverted to avoid potential Anglocentric bias and to accurately reflect the status of these titles. I encourage others to avoid confirmation bias and re-evaluate the information presented with a more open approach to the discussion, focusing on the facts rather than dismissing differing perspectives. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no evidence that the baron name as suggested is legal, and I see a lot of claims in the above discussion about the importance and long history of the title, which seems to ignore the division / duplication created, with one title having a long history and importance, and the "feudal" one split of recently and having little to no value (apart from a financial one). For example the old title Lord Balvaird and the new Lord of Balvaird: until recently they were the same title, for the same person. Or Lord Hailes, which became extinct upon the death of Patrick Buchan-Hepburn, 1st Baron Hailes, compared to Lord of Hailes, the bought and sold other title. Fram (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram I would like to point out that the Lord Lyon letters patent example I provided above is a clear demonstration of the legal recognition of a baron's title. As the monarch's representative in Scotland, the Lord Lyon's authority to recognise these titles on behalf of the crown is well-established.

Regarding your other point, it's important to note that the vast majority of these titles—around 95%—are "Baron of" titles, which are not linked to any peerage titles as far as I'm aware. I do acknowledge that anomaly titles "Lord of" and "Earl of" titles in the Baronage of Scotland can sometimes have a connection to extinct or extant peerages, but this is not the case for the "Baron of" titles we are discussing many of which have a very rich and dynastic hereditary history. Along with cultural heritage in Scotland.

The Declaration of Arbroath in 1320 is a letter sealed by about 40 barons of the kingdom of Scotland to the pope, asking him to recognise Scotland's independence and acknowledge Robert the Bruce as the country's lawful king. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baronage titles (I'd rather not mention the word "feudal" as feudalism was abolished) and peerage titles are not the same. They are separate entities, usually held by the same person, and have identical designations due to historical circumstances.

A baronage title was erected by a charter of erection, and peerage titles were granted by charters of gift (the Scottish term for letters patent) (both were under the Great Seal). The peerage title is the reason that the holder was entitled to attend Parliament and the House of Lords in modern times, after a 1428 act lifted the burden of barones minores to attend Parliament. The baronage title is the reason for why the holder had jurisdiction over their tenants and feudal rights until 2004. Both types enjoy the same historical significance as each other, so saying baronage titles are insignificant compared to peerage titles is somewhat unfair. Daniel Plumber (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Lyon then published a list of clan chiefs and "heads of territorial houses" in the Edinburgh Gazette. In this list, Lyon listed some surnames that incorporate "Baron of X" with the surname, for example "THACKER, BARON OF FETTERNEAR." So yes, they do form part of the name.

As for why HMPO doesn't include "Baron of X" in barons' passports, they are not very consistent regarding titles as I observe. For example, they still include territorial designations for barons regardless of whether the baron still holds the territorial designation. Meanwhile, genuine territorial designation holders (lairds) do not enjoy the same privileges, even if they are entitled to it. Lyon is the final authority in Scotland regarding aristocratic name changes. Daniel Plumber (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram you said "I have seen no evidence that the baron name as suggested is legal" in regards to strictly legal may I point you to:

"Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, 63

Baronies and other dignities and offices: "nothing in this Act affects the dignity of baron or any other dignity or office (whether or not of feudal origin)" "dignity" includes any quality or precedence associated with, and any heraldic privilege incidental to, the noble quality and use of title as covered in the Scottish Law Commission Report that led to the act".

UK Government Legislation Website. 16 June 2004. Retrieved 16 June 2004. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title and the legal name are not the same, or at the very least that isn't clear from what you post here. For "true" barons, the surname is changed to "The Lord" + title. For the feudal baronies, this isn't done (they are also the only group not included in the "How to record titles of nobility in a passport" section, but separately). Fram (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, I believe we’re getting sidetracked by the passport discussion, which is irrelevant to the guidelines for Scottish barons on this page. The legality of these titles has been established through Acts of Parliament and the Lord Lyon’s letters patent, as I’ve demonstrated. It seems my detailed points on passports in previous responses have not been fully acknowledged, but I think it’s time we move on from this particular topic.

Let’s refocus on the main issue, which is reaching a consensus on how these titles should be represented on Wikipedia. The key point here is ensuring that Wikipedia accurately reflects the legal and historical status of these titles, without getting bogged down in side issues. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles at the very least have little if anything to do with the "historical status" of these titles, and the legal status of these titles at the moment is comparable to e.g. baronets, i.e. they are real but have no other importance. And I disagree that the passport discussion isn't important if the proposed inclusion reads in part "The title Baron of X becomes part of the legal name as a title of nobility and is included in British passports for official documents." Without actual evidence for this (not the legality of the title, but "baron of X" becoming part of the legal name, which is a different claim), this bit at the very least has no business being in a manual of style.

As an aside, above you qoute Section 63: "dignity" includes any quality or precedence associated with, and any heraldic privilege incidental to, the noble quality and use of title as covered in the Scottish Law Commission Report that led to the act": but the linked text says "“dignity” includes any quality or precedence associated with, and any heraldic privilege incidental to, a dignity;". I can't find your quote (the second part) anywhere apart from other Wikipedia articles. Fram (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram feel free to click the link to read the original act, that part is not quoted it's not in quotations, it's giving context context based on the Scottish Law Commission Report that led to the Act that I previously sent to you on another Talk page.

It seems my responses are being overlooked or not fully read :( as I already mentioned in my response above to you:

If the passport comment is creating confusion or contention, I am happy to suggest a compromise: we could remove the reference to passports and leave the rest of the proposed edit intact. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You provide a quote which is incorrect, and then claim "that part is not quoted"? Then why include it? If it isn't in the law, you shouldn't posted it as if it is part of that link. And no, your responses aren't fully read, as they are confusing, internally contradictory, and as seen here, can't be trusted to be factual. Fram (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram I want to clarify that the information I provided is certainly not incorrect. The context I offered was explained the meaning of "dignity" as understood in the Scottish Law Commission Report that led to the Act. The text after the quotation is not a direct quote (hence not in quotations), and I apologise if that wasn’t clear, the link was provided to encourage you to click through and read it yourself.

Regarding your comment about my responses being "confusing, internally contradictory, and not factual," I respectfully disagree. I have made a consistent effort to provide accurate information supported by evidence, and I believe my points have been clear and straightforward. The legal status of these titles and the recognition provided by the Lord Lyon are well-documented, and I’ve provided multiple references to support this.

It seems that this critique is more about disagreeing with my point of view and not liking the facts I’ve provided, which prove the legality of these titles. If there's any specific part of my responses that you find unclear or believe to be incorrect, I’m open to discussing it further. However, I believe it’s important that we keep the discussion focused on the facts and work towards a constructive resolution. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your literal text, right above here, for anyone to see, ""dignity" includes any quality or precedence associated with, and any heraldic privilege incidental to, the noble quality and use of title as covered in the Scottish Law Commission Report that led to the act" with a link to the UK gov website, which has the first part of your quote (and it is a quote, in quotes), but not the second part. Why you insist that "The text after the quotation is not a direct quote (hence not in quotations)" when it clearly was written otherwise is not clear. Fram (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram I appreciate your attention to detail, again, I apologise for any confusion caused, but I hope my immediate follow-up clarification helped. Let’s move forward and focus on reaching a consensus on how these titles should be represented on Wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You insist on the legality of these titles, which I don't believe anyone has disputed. Discussion are about how we should title these, about the exact text of the potential section included for these, and more in general about the importance of the current ones and their status compared to the older ones. Perhaps it would be helpful if we had 5 or so current articles and a discussion about what the name would be in these cases. Looking at Baronage of Scotland, it seems we have very, very few articles which would be affected by this proposal, so perhaps nothing needs to be done anyway per WP:CREEP. Fram (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facts matter, Fram. I agree with Kellycrak88 that all topics, niche or not, should be approached with an open mind. We should seek consensus and resolution. I do think that Kelly has tried their best to provide us with credible sources here, as no one is perfect we should expect inconsistencies to occur.

Personally, I'd like to seek a settlement that would satisfy all parties. The noble aspects of Scottish baronies, though still arguable about their position in the Scottish nobility hierarchy, are undeniable. Daniel Plumber (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stop arguing about HMPO stuff? It's pointless, as the main topic is concerned with naming conventions rather than something else. Daniel Plumber (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then start by changing your proposed text and exclude "The title Baron of X becomes part of the legal name as a title of nobility and is included in British passports for official documents." You are the one that included it in the naming convention, please don't blame others if they take a critical look to what you want to include. Fram (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. If this is what we want then I'm happy to omit that part from the text, provided that the text is allowed to be in the article. If no one opposes the idea then I will bring the text back to its place. Daniel Plumber (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been following this discussion, and I was thinking that appears that their is no dispute about whether the titles are legally recognized ( in the UK), and their appears to be no dispute about whether the title is mentioned on British passports, their only appears to be a dispute about whether it is the “legal name”. Can we just say that the title appears on British passports under the observation section and leave it at that. Muirton (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram thank for sharing, you raise a valid point that WP:CREEP might be sufficient for now, however there has been discussion to create a wiki project similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clans_of_Scotland to create dedicated pages for barons especially the most historic and prestigious supported by credible sources links of course, that could possible eventually be 300-400 pages, if there enough interest and contributors got behind it. It does seem to me that is some appetite among editors for this kind of project. It might be worth revisiting adding guidelines once this project is off the ground? Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If such pages are created, and there turns out to be discussion about the titles, then adding guidance may be helpful. It seems to be as if most of these have a more substantial or important title anyway, in which case there is no problem as the feudal barony won't be part of the article title anyway. Fram (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/5/notes/division/1/3/6/11

Have a read of this link I find. It's the official explanatory notes of the Scotland Act 2000 that quote the Scottish Law Commission report.

Section 195 "ownership of such an estate and land enables the owner to adopt the title of "Baron of …"

Section 196 "has the right to use the title of baron AND, if granted armorial bearings by the Lord Lyon, to add certain special baronial features to the coat of arms"

Section 197 Subsection (1) "expressly preserves the dignity of baron... and any other dignity or office whether or not of feudal origin."

Section 198 Subsection (2) ""provides that the retained dignity of baron will no longer attach to the land. It will be a floating dignity which can be bought and sold as incorporeal heritable property and may be bequeathed by will in the normal way. If a baron dies intestate, the barony would transmit to the eldest son or other heir in accordance with the pre-1964 rules on intestate succession which were preserved by the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 for "any title, coat of arms, honour or dignity transmissible on the death of the holder""

Section 200 Subsection (4) "makes it clear that... "dignity" includes matters of heraldry and precedence incidental to a dignity, such as the addition of certain special baronial features to a coat of arms."

@Fram I believe you've deleted from the Baronage of Scotland a number of these points that are provided for in the letter of the law.

Therefore that can be no dispute about these titles and the addition to this page (as long as we build up a number of notable dedicated title pages). Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this line also also confirms that it is title, coat of arms, honour and dignity @DrKay and they wouldn't