Talk:Earl of Wigtoun (baronage title)

Difference from Earl of Wigtown?

Apart from the last few lines (starting with "With the end of"), this all is info about the same people as the Earl of Wigtown article and should be merged there. Specific info about the separate baronage title is then just that one paragraph, which is sourced to Geni (an unreliable site) and one old book. It is thus unclear why we should have a separate article, or (if the baronage title is separately notable) why it spends 90% on an already existing topic, and one paragraph, ending in the 19th century, on the actual topic of this article. What happened since then? Fram (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Good morning. Apologies for the delayed response.

Given the previous issues, I don't believe it would be prudent to merge these two topics without further consideration. The baronage title, as it shares an identical history with the peerage article, it may lack notability as you noted. So if a merger is deemed necessary, I suggest allowing the baronage title and its holder to be incorporated to the peerage article and properly source-attributed, as the peerage title was extinct anyways.

If Geni is considered an unreliable source, I'm happy to revise the entire paragraph and add more reliable references. Daniel Plumber (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

"Merge" was not my clearest word choice. I meant that the info about the Earl of Wigtown people and title which you wrote here, would best be added to that article, as it would make it better (I haven't checked what you wrote or the sources in detail, but I trust it to be generally correct). Fram (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)