Category talk:African-American Vernacular English

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFM discussion: December 2019–January 2020[edit]

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

Moot: Moving members of one category to a similar category (with an added hyphen)

Suggestion: Category:African American Vernacular English → Category:African-American Vernacular English.

I'm sure the hyphen is correct (compound modifier).

Articles labeled {lb| ... AAVE}, etc. used to be auto-added to [Category:African American Vernacular English] (without the hyphen).

Now they are auto-added to the new [Category:African American-Vernacular English] (with the hyphen). Some (124) show up there.

Some (200) articles remain in [Category:African American Vernacular English] (no hyphen), until they are edited - or null-edited or otherwise refreshed (tedious manual job, easy bot job).

Some articles remain in [Category:African American Vernacular English] (no hyphen) because they are directly categorized there. Need editing of the category line (tedious manual job, easy bot job), or removing the category and adding a label (tedious manual job, unlikely bot job).

Also the new category page has an error "The automatically-generated contents of this category has errors. ..." - A876 (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the error on the new category page by deleting {auto cat} from it. - A876 (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I restored this section because it's only been a couple of days and not enough people have had a chance to see it, let alone respond. I'm not objecting to the proposed change, which seems reasonable - just your methods. As for "withdrawing" this: that's like saying "I asked for permission to enter your property, but I'm withdrawing the request because I was able to cut a hole in your fence and get in that way". Truly withdrawing the request would require undoing your changes. I'm not going to revert all of your changes, though, since this may very well pass and there's no need to give the system unnecessary whiplash.
Please understand that I'm not accusing you of acting in bad faith- just not thinking things through. It's just that this is an important category used in lots of entries, so I think it should be given more time. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I forgot to ping: @A876 Chuck Entz (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot! I deleted the hyphenless category before seeing this discussion. It seemed a routine spelling-correction and the category was empty. I agree that it's bad form to propose a move here and then remove the post and do what you were proposing without waiting for discussion. The end result seems good to me but it was not done in the right way. — Eru·tuon 03:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I finished the clean-up. It was easier than I thought. The new category page is present; the old category page is gone. The null-edits and edits are complete, such that no affected articles are listed in old category, and all are [apparently] in the new category.

Amazing. With all the watchers and brutal correctors on this site, I kept wondering what land-mine my good-faith edits might trigger. (Neither commenter has the story right.) After I had made the issue moot and no one had yet responded to it, I deleted this section ("my" help-request), with edit-comment "withdrawing "my" request by deleting this "my" section." And then, wouldn't you know it, User:Chuck_Entz reverted my deletion, with edit-comment "Premature, possibly unjustified." (uh, my deletion was either "unjustified" or it wasn't; no room for weasel word "possibly"; I don't audit for "justification"), and then replied. Really. Maybe my request wasn't the most clear, but User:Chuck_Entz did not understand the situation before and after I posted and then deleted "my" request. Here's a rough timeline:

  • I renamed an article to [African-American Vernacular English]. (I added the hyphen joining the words of the compound modifier. Obvious. Call it consensus.)
  • I changed the auto-categorization category of {label} AAVE (and its synonyms) to include the hyphen in its expansions. (This action recategorized every page that is {label}ed using the abbreviation AAVE, but changes of this kind only take effect for each page after it is eventually edited or null-edited, which triggers re-processing of the changed template.) (It also left behind like 9 pages that were directly categorized using [Category:African American Vernacular English].
  • I felt a little "stuck" because of the lag and the lack of a new category page to list the members of the [new] category. (Though I think a non-existent category page still lists its members; I didn't check.) I hesitated to simply move the old category page or simply add a new one (maybe worried about side-effects), so I posted the above request, here. (My mistake. In hindsight, I think I should have simply moved the old category page (to preserve its history and its talk page). If that move even worked (who knows; I keep finding hidden lockouts that aren't revealed until I try to actually do something), I assume it would leave a redirect at the old category page. I would edit that old category page into a [temporary] "catcher" category page for the lagging articles (much like I did anyway). Later, after there were no lagging entries, I would then edit the old category page into a deprecated category page (much like I did anyway).
  • User:Equinox created the new category page. (That blocked any easy move of the old category page; not ideal.) (Also created it with a strange error-displaying template.)
  • I noticed the new category page, and that the listings were split between old one and the new one.
  • I synced the new category page to the old one, and then added explanations to both.
  • I revised this request to fit the new situation.
  • I removed the error-displaying template from the new category page. I mentioned this in a short reply to my request (and struck out the mention of the error in the request).
  • I found a much easier way to do null-edits on the 200 pages. So I did them, and then manually fixed the like 9 pages that null-edit didn't fix.
  • I edited the old category page to indicate it is deprecated, and to suggest its deletion (preferably by a move-onto, followed by restoring content, simply to preserve the edit-history).
  • I deleted this my request, because it was moot. (Everything carried over; I no longer wanted help cleaning up.)
  • User:Chuck_Entz restored this section and commented.
  • User:Erutuon deleted the old category page. (Didn't follow my now-lost clear instructions there. Thus its history and its talk-page (though valueless) are lost.)
  • User:Erutuon commented here.
  • I posted this reply.

Current state: The clean-up after the move was a little tedious, but it seems complete. (The only help now desired is if I missed a page affected by the changes.) I think the move was right. Yes, I treated it as uncontested. (If someone thinks it should be the other way, this time start with talk, because the discussion would start off with at least one objection, and flipping it once was a chore; flipping it 3 times would be sad. If someone wants to undo the added hyphen, I'd suggest starting with discussion, not a revert or independent "bold" change that has the same effect.

You could have just left this "my" section deleted, as I had completed everything I asked for, and was no longer requesting help (which probably wasn't coming anyway) cleaning up after a change that was already made (by me). No, "truly withdrawing" my request to move a category page (to match articles already moved) would not "require undoing [my] changes". I'm glad to think that "this may very well pass" (thanks), but uncomfortable that you think of "this" as a "this", and phrase it that way. If you don't have a problem with what I did, I don't need a reversion, here, of my deletion of my request because of the way you think I went about doing it. Even if someone did suggest a move (instead of just doing it) because of doubts, and then went ahead and did it when their doubts cleared up (emBOLDened, one might say) [by the way, NOT exactly what I did], why would I object to them then deleting their own now-moot request (which no one replied to)? It's the same as if they never asked for help or advice, because the result is the same: they made the change and did not receive any advice. (And don't say every change needs discussion.) The edits are out there on the site just the same; someone can notice them (or not), and accept them (or not). (If, somehow, someone thinks the hyphen shouldn't be there, let them discover it on their own (without this additional change-alarm) and do what they do. This moot request need not be here.)

Your analogy: "I asked for permission to enter your property, but I'm withdrawing the request because I was able to cut a hole in your fence and [got] in that way" is perfect, but for eight exceptions: I never "asked for permission" because I don't need "permission". It isn't "your property" or anyone's property or turf. Anyone can enter. There is no "fence" or lock for anyone to "cut a hole in". In the few places where there are "fences", it is impossible to "cut a hole". It isn't "your fence" (even if you built it or administrate it). I made changes first, before asking for help (not permission) completing them. Then I erased my request because I had made it moot. I had asked for help, and then I didn't need help. What you have accomplished is "unnecessary whiplash". They say "be bold". They don't document the consequences. - A876 (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please post requests for help in renaming a category to Wiktionary:Beer parlour or Wiktionary:Grease pit. This is the place to ask for permission and start a vote. Hence we expected you to leave the post up and not do anything until people responded (even if it takes ages and ages, much longer than the about 19 hours that you waited).
It is good to get some of the details straightened out. As to my deletion of the older category page, I've resurrected it and moved it over the newer one, and copied the latest revision of the newer one. (Maybe there is some better way to do it like merging histories but I'm a noob admin.)
Part of the "boldness" policy is that you can get in trouble for being bold, but personally in this case I see it mainly as the relatively insignificant problem of posting a request for help on the wrong page. — Eru·tuon 08:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hi. thanks. this one ended well. it's all battened down. you did good. i have less experience here, and norms and methods sometimes seem less clear here than on other wikis. there are more quirks and idiosyncrasies. there is much room for cleanup and consistentifying (even with all the busy bots), clarifying (documentation), and possibly restructuring (Wiktionary layers on more overly clever templates, possibly because the MediaWiki platform is not as good a fit for Wiktionary as for Wikipedia); but they require much study for small gains. i'll be more careful. - A876 (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


RFM discussion: November–December 2021[edit]

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

Category:African-American Vernacular English and related

Proposal: Merge Category:African-American Vernacular English and the related labels at Module:labels/data/subvarieties into Category:African-American English and the related labels in the module.

There are two reasons. First, the categories are defined the same way, that is as containing "terms or senses in English as spoken by African-Americans in the United States". If the categories are defined as serving the same purpose, it seems strange to keep them and their respective labels separate. Why keep Category:African-American English and not Category:African-American Vernacular English? Because, as discussed in the next paragraph, "vernacular" is frequently understood and used to mean "informal, casual, or colloquial". To avoid this confusion, I think the "vernacular" should not be kept.

Second, one could argue that the categories and labels should be kept separate because the term "African-American Vernacular English" refers to informal, casual, or colloquial language. This would make the category unique since we don't have the category, for example, Category:Informal Australian English. Instead we have Category:Australian English and Category:English informal terms separately, which I think is sufficient. Compare also the discussion at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/September#Black speech and writing that's not AAVE. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

(edit conflict) AAVE is the term that's widely used in the academic literature for this speech variety. It's "vernacular" due to diglossia: speakers of AAVE tend to switch to mainstream American English in formal situations. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. AAVE is the term most used in literature and the academic term that people are most used to. If anything, they should be merged into the AAVE category, but even then, I'd still oppose it. The description for the AAVE category should be updated to specifically reference the vernacular, while AAE should focus on the dialectal continuum and terms that don't fall under AAVE. Also, I want to push back on the notion that AAVE similar to "Informal Australian English" and its own relationships, as AAVE, in literature and in general, is distinct enough from other varieties of English to where it's not just a colloquial register but a native variety of many working-class African-Americans. I wish that coverage of AAVE were actually more involved, as it's still lacking at the moment, and many terms that I'd expect to be included haven't, and I wish that I had more time to add them myself. AG202 (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your pushing back on the idea that AAVE is comparable to a "Informal Australian English". I have the knowledge to know that they aren't comparable, though am still working to make it part of my automatic thinking. It also seems it wasn't really relevant for me to mention the argument, which is ultimately based on a misunderstanding, since that misunderstanding is evidently not present amount those responding to this proposal. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the proposed merger, but support the opposite merger (AAE into AAVE). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFM-Failed. The distinctions between Category:African-American English and Category:African-American Vernacular English need to be clarified and recorded somewhere. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:African-American_Vernacular_English&oldid=69565846"