Talk:Hokaglish

Requested move 30 July 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved - the argument from WP:COMMONNAME is more convincing than the nominator's proposal. DrStrauss talk 17:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Philippine Hybrid Hokkien (PHH) → Philippine Hybrid Hokkien – Duplicate Page, "PHH" is unnecessary Plistszo (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I reverted this to the original title so it is Hokaglish → Philippine Hybrid Hokkien. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment leaning Oppose - @Plistszo: per WP:COMMONNAME an article title does not need to be scholarly, its common recognizablity and other factors are more important (see WP:CRITERIA). And it seems like several, even academic, sources use "Hokaglish". Your edit summary for the initial (now reverted) move was "A more scholarly name from linguists who work on it." Could you please check the linked guideline and elaborate on your request a bit more based on these criteria, or provide some sources for the changed usage? GermanJoe (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Support Philippine Hybrid Hokkien has 147,000 search results, Hokaglish only has 1,600. I think Philippine Hybrid Hokkien is the WP:COMMONNAME Evertonfc13 (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Evertonfc13:, "Philippine Hybrid Hokkien" as exact search has 7 search results, some of them Wiki-mirrors (admittedly a few more hits might have been missed, Google isn't perfect). A non-exact search is too vague for a combined term, it includes topics like Hokkien and Philippine Hokkien, both of which are covered in separate articles. GermanJoe (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I removed my vote. Evertonfc13 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment @GermanJoe: I am the one studying the language. And as only linguist who studies it and as a part of the Chinese community here, it is problematic to call this variety an English like SingLISH because its 80% is Hokkien 10% is Tagalog and 10% is English. While most literature on Hokaglish (published in 2016, and presentations) are informative, most are still at the formative stage; the terminology 'Hokaglish' is tentative and misleading. Almost all of the literature on are conference presentations.

Thank you for the additional information. I don't doubt your expertise on this, but such decisions cannot be based on unpublished research or the view of a single researcher (especially when all published information uses the older term). And again, the primary goal for an article title is not scientific accuracy but recognizablity (Wikipedia has literally thousands of articles with technically "inaccurate" but more recognizable titles - WP:COMMONNAME includes a list of examples). Admittedly this case is a difficult one, but I changed my statement above to "Oppose". The current title is more inline with Wikipedia guidelines for article titles (imo), until additional publications document a significant lasting shift to a new terminology. GermanJoe (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Requested move 5 February 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Please note that moves are usually based upon the usage in a preponderance of reliable sources, not the possibility of finding sources that favor the suggested title. Dekimasuよ! 06:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Hokaglish → Philippine Hybrid Hokkien – Move request from IP-editor 49.195.66.165. See detailed reasoning below. GermanJoe (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I’d like to request page move and rename from Hokaglish to Philippine Hybrid Hokkien (PHH).

I’d like to request this on the following grounds:

1. “PHH” has been published and presented in different REPUTABLE journals: Gonzales, W. D. W. (2017) Chinese Filipinos tag their questions, kiam si? Some notes on tag questions in Philippine Hybrid Hokkien

Gonzales, W. D. W. (2018, online) Language contact in the Philippines The history and ecology from a Chinese Filipino perspective. John Benjamins, Language Ecology,

2. The term Hokaglish coined by the original author has been changed by the author himself. And this has been reflected in newer articles than the 2016 pioneering article on Hokaglish. Please find evidence below.

“I have previously referred to this as ‘Hokaglish’ in my previous work (Gonzales, 2016).”

3. ‘Hokaglish’ is tentative and misleading; it is problematic to call this variety an English like SingLISH because its 80% is Hokkien 10% is Tagalog and 10% is English. Please find evidence below:

“Philippine Hybrid Hokkien (PHH), a Hokkien variety spoken by the roughly 1.2 to 1.4 million Chinese Filipinos across the archipelago (Uytanlet 2014: 3).’

4. Ask anyone about “Hokaglish” and they won’t get it. Tell them about PHH, they’ll understand.

With these in mind, I propose that we move/change/rename the page to Philippine Hybrid Hokkien as the title is really misleading and confusing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.66.165 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Note - I have added the request template for the IP-editor's move request to help with the technical formalities. No change in the editor's original message. GermanJoe (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - the arguments are just repeating the previous discussion, some of them with exactly the same wording. Article titles are not decided by 1 author, but selected based on the majority of usages in reliable English-language sources. The majority of sources still use "Hokaglish". On a sidenote, both terms are equally valid search terms in Wikipedia and are clearly mentioned in the article's first sentence. Scientific topics include varying terms all the time, that's hardly "confusing" for readers. This article doesn't need a rename, but additional sources from other authors - then it would also be easier to find the best article title. GermanJoe (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion - Why not we split the page. After all, Hokaglish is a code-switching phenomena and PHH is a Hokkien variety. In other words, Hokaglish umbrellas PHH. It would be problematic to conflate both phenomena when they are clearly different phenomena based on literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.156.163.34 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The terms seem to be so closely related that a split doesn't make much sense (and the article is quite short). Any significant distinction between the two terms can and should be mentioned in this article of course. GermanJoe (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Article sources

On a sidenote, the current sources are based on earlier research from other sources and authors (for example: ref #2 lists a total of 51 underlying references). Maybe some of these earlier work from other authors could be directly referenced for closely-related aspects or relevant background research (just a thought to diversify the article sourcing a bit). GermanJoe (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Request to split: Philippine Hybrid Hokkien vs. Hokaglish

There is a distinction between PHH and Hokaglish. The latter is a distinct language that is derived from Hokkien Tagalog and English while the latter is a code-switching phenomenon. Please do not conflate them both. Also, no one does work on 'broken' languages so it is hard to find sources other than Gonzales' (and co-authors') work. If you know of other people who worked against this split, please let me know. Other than this, I believe it is unfair for people to conflate Hokaglish and PHH and discredit Gonzales' work.

I request that there be a separate page for describing the two linguistic codes - Hokaglish as code-switching and PHH as a distinct language that is unintelligible to speakers of Hokkien, Tagalog, and English. Native speakers know this. I can provide you with interview records showing that they think it is a 'broken' Hokkien. And this is different from conversations among English, Tagalog, and Hokkien sentences that SOUND like English Tagalog and Hokkien. PHH has its own phonology .

This is motivated by discussions on alternating between codes as opposed to NEW codes that emerge out of borrowing .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Huangjinshun (talk • contribs) 13:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Ref #5 in the article (link), a 2017 publication by Gonzales, clearly describes Hokaglish as "mixed language" (page 88 and again on page 89) - referencing his previous publications from 2016 as source. Your request highlights the fundamental problem of this article as outlined in the AfD nomination: Wikipedia articles are not supposed to cover cutting-edge research by a single author, whose definitions and results may still be in flux, and have not been widely discussed by other researchers. An encyclopedia is not a scientific journal. To avoid having possible mistakes in the content, the only constructive approach (imo) would be to move this article to draftspace again, until experts like you and other interested editors can sort this out. I would also recommend to wait with a new mainspace publication until this research has been covered and discussed by other authors. GermanJoe (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I think moving the article to draft would be the way to go for now. Thank you for your time and objective but constructive comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:100:7C00:D52D:4F50:CFE8:C63E (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It's always better to discuss such disagreements on article talk to find some consensus. If nobody else objects in the next few days - or has a better idea -, I will re-draftify the topic to allow more time to improve the sourcing and to clarify the question PHH vs. Hokaglish based on published sources. GermanJoe (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. there are several more topics in Wikipedia, where Hokaglish is linked or classified as a separate language. These instances would need cleaning up too (but it's easily done, no problem). GermanJoe (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I still see the page. Have we decided to draft it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huangjinshun (talk • contribs) 14:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I have done so now, as there seems to be no opposition to this approach and it is the most constructive way to move forward until the open issues can be resolved one way or another. GermanJoe (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)