Talk:Scotch mist

On 19 May 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved from Scotch mist (disambiguation) to Scotch mist. The result of the discussion was moved.

Scotch mist (phrase)

The link Scotch mist (phrase) seems to have been hi-jacked. I don't know what to do about it, but someone may. Ampwright (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 May 2025

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Pretty much uncontroversial, easy move per WP:MALPLACED (closed by non-admin page mover) Garsh (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch mist (disambiguation) → Scotch mist – WP:MALPLACED malplaced disambiguation page, primary is not a wp link but goes to wiktionary Ivey (talk - contribs) 13:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. Uncontroversial technical request. There is no Wikipedia entry that uses lowercase "Scotch mist" as the main title header and the sole entry that uses uppercase "Scotch Mist" is the stub delineating 1926's Scotch Mist (play), while standalone uppercase Scotch Mist is a redirect to Galium sylvaticum. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lowercase term arguably doesn't get used at all besides in List of phrases using ethnic or place names as derisive adjectives. Page should be moved to Scotch Mist (disambiguation) unless the play article gets deleted for non-notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And now that list has been deleted, so the lowercase term is used nowhere on Wikipedia. It would be pointless to have a DAB for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Uncontroversial technical request. Contra User: Zxcvbnmᴛ, the phrase is in frequent use to describe the weather phenomenon. I have never heard it used to describe the rather obscure plant. SRamzy (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SRamzy: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet Wikipedia includes articles on other weather phenomena, e.g. mist, snow, sleet, etc. The issue is really that we have a phrase that has been coined to describe a particular phenomenon, i.e. "Scotch mist" (lower case), but then has various derivative uses to name particular items, e.g. plant varieties, drinks. SRamzy (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The usage as a phrase for a type of mist is the first entry on wikitionary, but I agree it has no usages on wikipedia. I think for now just solving the Wikipedia:MALPLACED issue is good, and seeing if Scotch mist (phrase) gets turned into an article. Then we can have a primary topic conversation. Ivey (talk - contribs) 13:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Scotch mist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) used to point to the flower Galium sylvaticum until May 17, 2025 -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is, it did between January 2017 and that date. I changed the entry on 17 May this year to remove the redirection to an obscure plant. I don´t know why the redirection was put there in Jan 2017: no explanation given. SRamzy (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user who did that in 2017, also blanked the disambiguation page at Scotch Mist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to point that to the plant as well. The disambig page created in the 2000s should be histmerged onto the current disambiguation page -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The history splice has been completed. The entire history of the disambiguation page is now attached to this page. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. SRamzy (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Though the history of this page is not clear cut, this proposal is still good for moving forward. Azuredivay (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. SRamzy (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverted cleanup

Hi @SRamzy reverting is usually for vandalism or disruptive edits - [WP:RV]. My cleanup was in good faith, and I stand by it. Disambiguation pages aren't articles, they're to disambiguate content on Wikipedia. The current "primary topic" isn't one, it's a dictionary link. External links should not be used on disambiguation pages. In the future, a conversation before reverting a good-faith edit would be appreciated.

If you think the usage as a phrase is worthy of being a full article, I suggest putting it at Scotch mist (phrase) for now.

I am going to re-do my cleanup work, but will use that redirect as the primary topic for now. Ivey (talk - contribs) 13:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ivey, thanks for the link to the article on reverting. I accept that your edit was in good faith. The more appropriate action I could have taken would have been to restore the information that the primary sense of the phrase is the meteorological phenomenon, from which other senses have been derived.

My edits on 20 May were aimed at repairing a situation where users typing in Scotch mist were being redirected to a page concerning the plant Galium sylvaticum, a plant I´ve frankly never heard of. That situation came into existence in 2017, and was complained about at Talk:Galium sylvaticum.

I have been examining similar pages and think maybe Sleet would be a good model to follow, The topic doesn´t deserve its own full page like Snow. SRamzy (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]