Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2019-02/Treat Scots as English

Voting on: handling Scots words as ==English== (with {{label}}s and {{qualifier}}s where appropriate).

Rationale: Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2019-02/Treat Scots as English § Rationale.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Vote created: - -sche (discuss) 23:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2019/February § Scots again
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2019-02/Treat Scots as English

1. Oppose – though Scots and English can exist on a continuum, and though there are difficult edge cases, it doesn't make it more useful to those interested in Scots to fold it into English. Scots has a very large literary corpus and remains hugely prevalent on social media, and we can best reflect this usage by considering it (like linguists) a separate language. Ƿidsiþ 15:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per talk page. In addition to what I've already written, it seems like the major arguments for this are that it would make it easier to write entries about English words, and this isn't fair to Scots. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose As someone who has worked on Scots (I'm told this matters), I do not think that we should take a language and stick it under English because that would be more convenient for us, especially when that would mean dropping support for that language's conjugations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose per others' arguments, and also because I'm not happy about the idea that words used by, say, Robert Burns, now obsolete even in Scotland and never used in England, would belong under the header English. --Droigheann (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

   Being used in England should never be a criterion in determining whether a word belongs under English though. Many dialectal and regional words, like byheart (India) and faucet (America) are not used in England but are nonetheless part of the English language. Leasnam (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

   Granted, but I think that, at least in the context of this vote, there is a significant difference between Indian and American English, which branched off from what we treat here as "English" (albeit with other influences including Scots), and Scots, which developed simultaneously from Old and Middle English, both of which we treat as languages in their own right. Droigheann (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

5. Oppose, but support treating English as a dialect of Scots. More to the point, dialect continuums containing multiple "languages" aren't exactly rare across the world, so why is this one particular case more troublesome? Can we not just see how it's handled in other cases? I suggest drawing a proper linguistic as opposed to geographical border between the two, meaning one that has clearly defined isoglosses that are documented in linguistic sources. We need to be able to answer the question "is Northumbrian English because it's in England, or because it lies south of an isogloss?". —Rua (mew) 12:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

   I don't know whether an isogloss has ever been drawn, but when you get words like Scots bairn and English bairn which come from Old English and are Geordie as well as Northumbrian, it must be difficult to draw one. DonnanZ (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

   One possible isogloss could be the outcome of the Great Vowel Shift. That would group dialects of northern England with Scots. —Rua (mew) 14:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) "How it's handled in other cases" seems to vary a lot depending on the languages in question. We treat Norwegian Bokmal and Norwegian Nynorsk as separate languages, but lump all of Chinese together as one language. I guess overall we're more "splitters" than "lumpers" (with Chinese being a big exception)—we also split up a lot of languages of the Iberian peninsula even when they're mutually intelligible, and we sure seem to have a lot of different headers for varieties of German. I suspect there are many cases that are just as troublesome as Scots, it's just that not all of them have had votes yet (Chinese and Norwegian have had votes). —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

   I haven't a clue about Chinese, but both Bokmål and Nynorsk are official languages, and Riksmål isn't. I think many Scots dialect words that are included are best described as semi- or quasi-official (or completely unofficial, such as poond for pound, which is based on pronunciation). I would like to know whether there is an authoritative Scots dictionary available. DonnanZ (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

   The Dictionary of the Scots Language is one, but it also includes Scottish English and doesn't distinguish between Scots and Scottish English.--Hazarasp (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

   Thanks, I may order this book. DonnanZ (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

   What's different (more troublesome?) about Scots and English is that this is the English Wiktionary and people have raised questions about whether we should be "translating" Scots into English, have Scots in translation tables, translation requests, etc. DTLHS (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

6. Oppose weakly. Equinox ◑ 13:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose strongly. Yes, Scots can be considered an English dialect. All the same, Scottish Gaelic could be considered an Irish dialect and Dutch could be considered a German dialect. I think all languages that have a separate ISO 639-3 code should be treated as separate languages, unless SIL were obviously mistaken or, perhaps, in cases where we already group several varieties together into one language. There are no hard criteria whether some variety is a dialect or a separate language. Allowing Scots to be treated as English would set a huge precedent. Steinbach (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Widsith and Droigheann. I think having Scots as a separate language offers a better experience to users. Despite the continuum with Northern English, having Shetlandic or Doric Scots forms under English (Doric fa for who, fit for what) seems a little bizarre to me. Modern Scots is also continuous with early modern Scots, which was a language standard of its own. A merger of Scots and English would also remove the distinction between everyday Scots and Scottish Standard English. So arguments about continua can also cut the other way. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
9. Oppose strongly, as the only benefit of moving Scots under English would be that it would be easier to work with, while sacrificing the language's distinctiveness, which seems to me to be against the entire nature of Wiktionary. I agree with DTLHS and פֿינצטערניש that this vote should have never been held to begin with, and that Scots speakers who see this vote would likely abhor it. GabeMoore (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Widsith. Julia ☺ ☆ 14:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

    Oppose I agree with GabeMoore and the users he mentioned. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

    Struck, as not yet eligible to vote in this vote per the voting policy. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 08:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

11. Oppose Although a case can be made to treat English and Scots as (named) dialects of a single language, a more or less equally strong case can be made to treat them as different languages ('A language is a dialect with an army and navy' and all that). I don't see a definite up side for collapsing them. The downsides are political (naming both 'English' minimizes Scots and Scots speakers) and organizational (potentially more difficult for users to find Scots lexemes). Cnilep (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Good points. Leasnam (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

1. Abstain
   — Zack. — 14:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Abstain for now. I am inclined to support this proposal, and may change my vote. I did find some ridiculous Scots words when doing etyl cleanups, pornography failed RFV (diff). Some place names are close to English, e.g Cummernaud and Sanchar (Sanquhar) which come from Scots Gaelic, as does the surname Farquhar, which is only included as English. DonnanZ (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

   It's worth checking to see how many Scots words appear in English dictionaries; I have added Oxford references to auld and braw. Scots forms of place names never appear on Ordnance Survey maps, but Scottish Gaelic can in some cases, e.g. An Gearasdan / Fort William. In fact many places in remote areas, such as hills and mountains, only have Gaelic names. DonnanZ (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

3. Abstain Without actual Scots contributors (or speakers), I don't think this vote is a good idea. If there were people actively adding Scots content they would be the ones to judge how it is to be treated. DTLHS (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

   Though I voted no because the vote already is happening, I would add that having a vote on this is a great way to repel Scots contributors. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

4. Abstain, for the time being. I am inclined to oppose; however, if it's easier to represent Scots to the world side by side with English then I would not be up in arms to that--at the very least Scots terminology would be receiving the recognition it deserves. Again, this vote in no way attempts to settle any debate about the status of Scots, whether dialect or language, it is merely relative to the treatment of Scots by Wiktionary for the purpose of efficient delivery. We've been allowing Scots to headline as its own language for several years now, and not many Scots speakers seem thus far to have taken any real interest in carrying it to a higher level. Leasnam (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

   Abstain as apparently I'm not allowed to vote...though there was never a vote per se disallowing me. --Wonderfool early February 2019 (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

   Struck as a permablocked editor. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

   That's a bit mean. I'm not even sure why he is permablocked. DonnanZ (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

   w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-23/Robdurbar. Going on a vandalism spree multiple times and continuously setting up new accounts to evade blocks seems like plenty of reason.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

   Hmm, we have to be absolutely sure that it's one and the same person. All that happened well before I became a user in 2013. DonnanZ (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

   I really don't think we have to check if "Wonderfool early February 2019" and "Wonderfool" are the same user; in fact, I think identifying themselves as a blocked user is sufficient grounds for blocking.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

   Admittedly, choosing any WF-related user name is rather daft. DonnanZ (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

   He does have a very clear pattern of editing, and random checks along the way have always confirmed. I think he enjoys the status quo, but I would personally be fine with just unblocking one of the old accounts and not making him an admin again. - TheDaveRoss 12:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

   I wouldn't disagree with that, it could be the way forward. I have seen some good contributions that have been made between blocks. DonnanZ (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

0-11-4, Fails. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 07:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)