Template talk:Baronage of Scotland

Design

@Daniel Plumber: what was your rationale for this edit? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to make the template look good. Daniel Plumber (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

A Scottish Barony Title is a noble title, officially recognised. Our authority for this very clear statement is based on decisions in the Scottish Courts, institutional writers (writers whose text is accepted in Scottish courts as an explanation of the law) and by Act of the Scottish Parliament. In Spencer-Thomas v Newell it was held inter alia “(1) that the essential feature of a barony title was the noble quality of the feudal grant.” The Lyon Court, in the Petition of Maclean of Ardgour for a Birth brieve by Interlocutor dated 26th February 1943, “Finds and Declares that the Minor Barons of Scotland are, and have both in this Nobiliary Court, and in the Court of Session, been recognised as “titled” nobility, and that the estait of the Baronage (The Barones Minores) is of the ancient Feudal Nobility of Scotland”. 2A04:CEC0:F072:5AD5:2C15:A2AB:9D5:9DB9 (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I support this; these are obviously titles of nobility and the word 'nobility' should be kept in the template text" 2A04:CEC0:F072:5AD5:2C15:A2AB:9D5:9DB9 (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88: Regarding this edit, sidebar templates aren't the place for reference notes, and the use of italics here isn't correct. What is your rationale for your preferred formatting? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nikkimaria thanks for reaching out here, I see you're a very active user involved in a lot of edits each day, so first off thank you for your wikipedia contributions.

I added the reference note as you removed the word nobility which is integral to describing the baronage and by including the note on the template page it will encourage other editors before they delete the word nobility.

The note says:

1. Ruling of the Court of the Lord Lyon (26 February 1948, Vol. IV, page 26): "With regard to the words 'untitled nobility' employed in certain recent birthbrieves in relation to the (Minor) Baronage of Scotland, Finds and Declares that the (Minor) Barons of Scotland are, and have been both in this nobiliary Court and in the Court of Session recognised as a 'titled nobility' and that the estait of the Baronage (i.e. Barones Minores) are of the ancient Feudal Nobility of Scotland".

Furthermore, in recent years the court of the Lord Lyon representing the monarch in Scotland, the registry of Scots Nobility, the Scottish Law Commission Government Website, UK Government Legislation Website, the Scottish Parliament and institutional writers all refer to the noble title of a Scottish baron and the noble quality and noble aspects of the barony title.

Therefore, this is the reason the topic is titled: The Ancient Nobility of the Baronage of Scotland.

You also reordered and renamed the links putting Duke first. There is only 1 duke and 1 marquis in the baronage and even mentioning Duke or Marquis raises a lot of eyebrows in the topic as 90-95% about Barons, hence the Barons page needs to be put first this is where readers that want to learn more should start, not on higher degrees that are actually irrelevant for the most part. Duke and Marquis are a footnote. I appreciate your point on precedence but it doesn't come into it here.

@Daniel Plumber also changed the title to Noblesse to make it a series on Noblesse... I disagree, this confuses the topic and I am not in agreement... this is about the Baronage of Scotland, I am willing to listen to consensus and other opinions, but as I am the main contributor to this topic and as I created the template in the first place I do feel I have an opinion here.

Finally, on formatting both @Daniel Plumber edits and @Nikkimaria edits broke the formatting of the side bar and it looks terrible visually on different pages. Please kindly check your work after editing. @Nikkimaria you mention use of italics is not correct, however I see many side bars on other templates that have are pleasantly formatted for the eye. Aesthetics are equally as important.

Also, removing the text at the top cap of maintenance and chapeau with series, I also do not agree, as this will encourage another editor to delete the chapeau not understanding it's meaning to scottish barons as per the current description in historical heraldry. There is no reason to put the word series there.

These are my concerns, I believe no need further edits are needed, other than adding further pages, thank you for continued efforts and contributions my fellow wikipedians.

ALSO SEPARATELY TO THIS we are starting a Baronage of Scotland project to create 400 dedicated pages for the history of each Barony. Similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clans_of_Scotland which I've been a contributor to. I'd welcome your positive contributions. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree with your assertion that Aesthetics are equally as important. Functionality always takes precedence over aesthetics. Additionally aesthetics are a subjective opinion - personally I feel that the present version, in addition to its functional shortcomings, does not look pleasant at all.

This template should be formatted similarly to {{Peerages in the United Kingdom}} for consistency, rather than throwing in extraneous formatting and footnotes which result in problems on pages on which this is transcluded. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I do think we need to leave the words "nobility" in the template. That Scottish Feudal Baronies are titles of nobility follows directly from the fact that they were created by the very same type of documents and by the same fons honorum as pre-1707 titles that are today peerages. It is also mentioned multiple times in the Scottish Law Commission consultation paper [Scot Law Com # 168] and referenced by many previous Lord Lyons and institutional writers. The Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 specifically retains all titles, dignities and privileges, but in any case this is probably not a devolved matter. I agree that it may be a bit absurd in 2024, but we need to stick to fact over personal opinion. Charliez (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Daniel Plumber (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that re-formatting the template and removing footnotes is sufficient. As Charliez said, leaving the "nobility" words is needed. Daniel Plumber (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria I noticed you've reverted some changes, even though there seems to be a consensus here to the contrary. In response to your comment, I believe the current functionality is working as intended and doesn’t cause the issues to pages you've mentioned.

@Nikkimaria It seems we have differing perspectives on this. I still believe that the aesthetic aspect is important, particularly when the functionality is already satisfactory. I would like to reiterate my points above in favor of maintaining the status quo.

@Daniel Plumber I’m concerned that removing the footnotes might leave the article vulnerable to edits that could undermine the consensus. I think it’s important to keep them in place, and I don’t see a need to reformat at this time. As the saying goes, "if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it." Regarding Duke at the top, I personally don’t think it should be included at all, but if it is, it shouldn’t be the first thing readers see. The infobox doesn’t need to match the peerage version, for the reasons I’ve outlined above. I’ve reverted the changes in line with what seems to be the majority consensus. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kellycrak88, the commenters above seem to agree that the word "nobility" should be included; I have no objection to that. But I also see support for reformatting the template and removing footnotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say I prefer the current version. While I understand the argument for the "Duke downwards" order, I think it makes less sense for the baronage than for the peerage given that there's only one single feudal dukedom with an article on Wikipedia. As to footnotes I definitely see the argument that they seem to clutter up the template, but that is more an issue when the template is viewed on its own and not so much when it is actually used. If there are issues in the template that requires a footnote, it makes sense to include it here rather than having to manually reference that issue on each article where the template is used. Charliez (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

After a short reflection, I think I would agree with that. It looks good and doesn't need more changes. Daniel Plumber (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Reopening the discussion a bit later, I'm very much of the opinion that the whole "The Ancient Nobility of the", extra-large font, and footnotes are adding more clutter than anything, and hindering the primary purpose which is navigation. While elegance is very much a good thing, a navbox shouldn't go all the way to being showy and attention-grabbing. Same for things like "very rare" which aren't doing anything for the navbox. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)