Talk:Earl of Aboyne

Latest comment: 7 days ago by Daniel Plumber in topic Inclusion of Simoes

Inclusion of Simoes

edit

The title bought by Simoes has no actual relation to the original title, and has no notability at all[1]. There is no reason why this should be included. Fram (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

He was granted arms by the Lord Lyon on the basis that he holds the dignity of a feudal earl, and he has entry on Debretts' Feudal Baronies Directory and Burke's Revised Family as a feudal earl. Daniel Plumber (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Anyone who buys a Scottish title and applies for arms will be granted such arms. "Feudal earl" is a vanity title with no actual value, and which receives no attention outside these rather sclerotic circles listing all titles, no matter how meaningless. Fram (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Again, your very own opinion. Daniel Plumber (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are a lot of peers of the realm who do not receive much attetion either. Since when "attention" is the standard for accuracy? Daniel Plumber (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just trying to decide how meaningful the title is. It is (or can be) bought, so it's not as if one is a member of an old family, heir to functions, castles, ... Simoes title has no "power", it comes with nothing at all and (as far as Simoes is concerned) from nothing at all, and it hasn't been the subject of e.g. news reports. Why should we include something which affects noone or nothing, which no one cares about, and which sheds no light on the real history of the title and the family which held it at a time it had some value? Fram (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because it is a fact. A certified fact. And as I said in the Wigtown talk page, it should be kept for context purpose. Daniel Plumber (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Personal opinion comes after fact. Daniel Plumber (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not all facts should be included though. Looking at the current article[2] I see no reason to add a section about a separate, meaningless, paid-for title, even if the basic facts about that title are true. The Earl of Aboyne as described in the current article is a notable entity; the Baronage title is a non-notable enntity. Piggy-backing the non-notable current entry into an article about a historical notable title is unwarranted. Fram (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think we have to disagree there. What about the articles on the Lord of Balvaird and the Baron of Grougar? Until I know how these things work, I remain entitled to my view. Daniel Plumber (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
They are all paid-for titles. Daniel Plumber (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
As it stands, I see no reason to include the current holder at Grougar. The entry is unsourced and not notable[3]. It would at the very least need verification anyway. Balvaird at least owns the castle as well, giving more meaning to the title. Fram (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
So owning the caput makes the title more notable in Wikipedia's standard? Alright then, your game your rule. Daniel Plumber (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply