Talk:Scots

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Scotland

This disambiguation page 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

RM[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. I'm open to give this a relist if you want, Red Slash, but I think that even with these two opposes this RM isn't going to get a consensus to move. Jenks24 (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scots → Scots (disambiguation) – The word "Scots" most commonly refers to Scottish people and this page should take our readers to that article. I am not proposing a move of Scottish people, but I am proposing that this page redirect to Scottish people. My reasoning is as follows:

WP:CONSISTENCY. If the denonym (name for where you come from) of a group of people can be pluralized, that's generally where we put the article. Canadians, Swedes, Finns, Egyptians, Koreans, Americans, Africans, Asians, Australians, etc. Many of the others redirect to an article about that people group--Sri Lankans, Brazilians... those articles are probably ripe for a WP:RM, but whatever. Other than Indians, I can't come up with any other examples where putting in the name of the ethnic group in question takes you anywhere but the article on the people. That leads to:
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Most (certainly not all, but most) books containing the word "Scots" use it to refer to the Scottish people. And let's face it--the long-lasting notability of the Scottish people far outweighs everything else on this page,, including the language which is only notable because people have spoken it (and which people have spoken it? Why, the Scots, of course!). Pageviews are roughly similar, but using the long-lasting educational significance guideline, we can probably safely say that people are more notable than the language that some of them speak.
I note with great respect that most other topics listed here are either differentiated by WP:DIFFCAPS or are WP:PTM.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Red Slash 06:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the people are the Scottish, the language is Scots, unless you're making the compound Scots-Irish, but not in cases like Scottish American. While a singular Scottish person is a Scot, as a group I would say use "Scottish" and keep "Scots" for the language or as a disambiguation page. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I appreciate your arguments, but after careful consideration I think it's best left as it is. There seems to be no clear primary topic. When I hear the word "Scots" the first thing I think of is the language, with use as an adjective second ("Scots law", "Scots fisheries"), and use to mean the people only third, though others will no doubt make different associations. Comparisons with other examples are not directly applicable – you wouldn't use "Canadians" to refer to a language, nor would you speak of "Canadians law" or "Canadians fisheries". --Deskford (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.