Talk:Jock Scot

	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 is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Scotland

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Naming non-notable family members

48Pills, are you familiar with the guidelines on including the names of non-notable family members in biography articles? I believe we are meant to err on the side of respecting people's privacy; see WP:BIOFAMILY, WP:BLPNAME. Could you explain why you think it is important or relevant to name private individuals in this article, rather than simply reverting edits such as mine, that are accompanied by an explanatory edit summary? Eric ^talk 10:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Providing the names of the mothers that do not have their own wiki page, and have not been intentionally concealed, is not an attempt to confer a degree of notability upon them. Besides, all WP:BIOFAMILY says is, mentioning family members in passing does not show them as notable. "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." Your opinion would only have relevance if the mothers' names were not already well publicised information. 48Pills (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My possibly irrelevant opinion is that we stray into society pages trivia territory when we publish the names of private citizens who are not public figures, and that publishing the names of such people does nothing to enhance the quality of articles such as this one. This is my read of WP:BLPNAME (privacy of names) and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE (people who are relatively unknown). Eric ^talk 15:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric I completely understand your point of view, but, in my opinion, the addition of these two names is not going to be the beginning of the slippery slope that your suggestion envisages. 48Pills (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping other editors might offer opinions here, but I don't think the article gets much traffic. Eric ^talk 11:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]