Talk:Yo (greeting)

Yoism and format

Should this entry have a link to Yoism?
- Loadmaster 15:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, i think it should at least make a link to Yoism.. This article really needs to have some formatting, its just a block of text. (I would do it but im not very good at 'wikify'ing...) Samoen 16:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Same here. i wish i could, but heh. V.V. hopefuly someone does it. Peace Out Yo! -EvilHom3r September 25, 2006. 6:07 AM (EST)

1960s?

Since when did "yo" begin in the 1960s? I've seen many 50s movies where American GIs in WWII would respond to the calling of roll with the word. That proves that the phrase is older than Pyle's usage, and would strongly suggest that it was in usage by at least the mid 1940s in that context. Some more serious research needs to be done into the origins and history. - Plasticbadge 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears in Western movies from the 50s, at least. 71.171.103.178 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

1970s

I lived in New England from about 1976 to 1984, and never ever heard anyone use the term "yo" till i saw Battlestar Galactica, the original tv series, which also introduced the term "frack". Aside from a few experimentel uses at school after that show aired, nobody used the term yo again until it became popular in rap music.

1940's?

Um f-y-i most wwII movies weren't made in wwII. they were made after it ended when theusage was more common. you should use a more reliable critisizm before trying to prove the article wrong than movies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.186.112.1 (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Plasticbadge stated 50s movies, which suggests that it was used in the 40s (assuming the language used in the films is roughly accurate).MorkaisChosen 19:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

2007-03-10 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch Origin?

According to the book, Black English by JL Dilliard, which I read many years ago, it is of Dutch Origin. I am going to have to go back to the source to check it out, but I am pretty sure that this is the case. It was originally spelled "Joe." In Black English, there were sample of writings with this spelling contained, dating back to the forties. I am going to track the book down and check it out because my memory is a little fuzzy, unless someone finds it first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.189.13.220 (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Transwiki

Should this be transwiki'ed to wiktionary? Sarsaparilla 16:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Negatory good buddy. This article has wider cultural significance and is not just as a mere word. You got that yo? Check it. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Traditional Japanese music

I know there's a use of "yo" in Japanese traditional music, but it goes more like "yoo-!". Can anyone please find relevant sources to this and add it to the article? 22:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC) White Mage Cid

Italian "Io"? Unlikely.

I'm not buying the (unsourced) explanation that "Yo" stems from Italian "Io". Italian "Io" is pronounced as ['i:.ɔ], two syllables, starting with a long and stressed "EE" sound, and an open and very short "o" sound. (EE-o) "Yo", on the other hand, is pronounced as [joʊ], one syllable, with a short y and a longer oh following, much more like Spanish "yo", which also means "I". (there is, however, in southern Italy, an interjection sounding much the same way as the American counterpart, without th "y" sound: O! [oʊ], which actually is used in the same way as American "yo", (as in "O! Michele!" which might have migrated over to America that way.)

Speculative sections

The history, etymology, and origins not only are mostly unreferenced, but highly speculative and in some cases unlikely to be true. I would set this article to be either wholly re-written or at the very least it needs to be better sourced with a modicum of scholarly rigor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.124.16.11 (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This whole article is speculative, especially the sections taken as gospel simply because some academic decided to write a book about it. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Etymology of Yo

For a while, we had the correct etymology of "Yo" listed on the page under the etymology section. However, for whatever reason, user JesseRafe has vehemently insisted on keeping the folk etymology currently listed on the page, and has reverted any attempts of me trying to restore the actual etymology to the page. My last attempt (where I included many references) to restore the actual etymology to the page was reverted by user AussieLegend, on the grounds that my restoration was done in a way that reverted other unrelated, meaningful contributions by other editors. I have thenceforth not made any further attempts to correct the etymology section, on the grounds that I figured JesseRafe would be unlikely to accept any explanations from me, references or ne.

Now, I have on multiple occasions suggested to JesseRafe that he open a discussion rather than constantly revert my edits if he honestly believed that the Italian etymology was the correct one. However, he refused to do so.

Therefore, I have decided that I would open a discussion here, as I'd rather not allow folk etymologies to distort the perception of readers if we can prevent them from doing so. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, "for "a while" your opinion of what is the correct etymology was on there, added by you. This was uncited. Your opinion of an incorrect folk etymology was there for years, and has been re-added because it was cited. If you want to call these published books wrong, then find a source that says that it is wrong. Until then, the cited items must be treated as verified, and uncited musings must be treated as unsubstantiated OR. Basic procedures. JesseRafe (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If you bothered checking that aforementioned edit, you would have noticed that I included plenty of references to it. I'm not sure if you glossed over the rest of my message or what, but I clearly mentioned that that edit included references. Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm not the first one to point out the ridiculousness of the folk etymology currently present on this page. Look at the other discussions about it above. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Humor me. Show me a single reference I removed here. This was my edit, before AussieLegend's restoratrion and expansion. JesseRafe (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said that you reverted anything that had references, I said that the last edit that I made, which (again) I have linked above, contains plenty of references that I added. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I never saw that edit, and, quite frankly, if it belongs at all, it should go in Other Uses. It's greatly over-long, and has no connection with the word the article is about. Yo and the Yes/Yeah/Ja group might have at one point been related, but like vermin and worm or graph and carve mean different things in modern English, and have for centuries. No contemporary usage of "yo" means anything close to an affirmative. The closest is the relatively random use as a simple interjection to mean "present/accounted for/here" in some rollcalls, such as seen in calvary troops in Westerns, but nowhere else I've seen or heard it. JesseRafe (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not pertinent to its etymology, though. Semantic shifts occur all of the time. That is one of the reasons why we try to list etymologies here, because if every word were to be derived from precisely what one would have assumed it be derived from, nobody would need to research etymologies. Furthermore, using one of the examples you gave, "vermin" and "worm" are still etymologically related. No amount of semantic shift will ever change that. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course they're etymologically related, that's why I was bringing them up as examples. The worm article doesn't say anything about vermin, etc. None of that belongs on this article. You are trying really hard to seem like an expert in linguistics topics, but you really sound silly when you try to explain things like semantic shift, especially because you can't understand simple pragmatics. Really, what do you think I meant by "but like..."? Obviously they stem from the same root, they're the first two doublets that happened to come to my head, but all of this uncited noise about yeomen belongs on a blog post about interesting etymologies, not an article on "yo". It's distracting and overly-in-depth (not to mention eminently questionable). JesseRafe (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not "trying hard" to do anything of the sort, so please stop making those claims. Perhaps I misunderstood your last comment when I responded?

Either way, whether or not the comparison to yeoman's development is useful, the fact of the matter is that the correct etymology is now sourced, so it should be reinstated. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Listen, if you're not going to continue this discussion, I'm just going to re-add the sourced material into the etymology. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The conversation appears to be over, you don't have consensus. Two editors feel it doesn't belong, one editor feels it does. Kinda the end of it the way I see it. JesseRafe (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hogswallop. Plenty of other users have brought up how ridiculous it is to include the currently listed etymology. Furthermore, you have no reason to refuse its inclusion because it's just as supported citation-wise as your "etymology" you so strongly insist on including. Your former argument of "it's not cited" is no longer usable, because now it is. So, unless you can think of any other reason not to include it, I'm going to go and restore it. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Question: Who are the two editors who don't feel it belongs? I only see two editors having participated in this discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

1) Don't put words in my mouth, I never made that argument because I never saw that edit with those citations as another user reverted that (we even have different names and everything! You can tell us apart rather easily I'd think, one of is Australian, and we don't even agree on much!). So clearly you know that you are in the wrong, and you are intentionally stating you are going to break wikipedia editing guidelines in defiance of lack of consensus. 2) This is not my etymology, I have nothing to do with it. It's the etymology of the people who wrote those books and articles that stated it. Did you write a book? If so, please put a COI notice on your userpage and then cite your book on this article, refuting the other etymology and we can even put a "controversy" section for it. 3) Please do the relatively simple research of checking the dates on the Talk page, those conversations are not current, and neither are the versions of the article referred to. 4) All of that superfluous information about "yeah/yes/ja/yeoman" you included simply does not belong on this article, why don't you simply add a link to the word "yes" and its etymology section (if it has one) or put that info on wiktionary, where long-drawn out etymologies and your "fun facts" belong? The fact that it was uncited was irrelevant to my reasons that it didn't belong, just a simple proof that it was nonsense and OR, which by definition is uncited. 5) In addition to your uncited opinions and OR, as I said from the beginning when we first butt heads, I find your style of prose to decidedly unencyclopedic, you are not writing to a person, but in the voice of an encyclopedia, so all your little turns of phrase and "either way, it's pronounced the same anywise" colloquialisms and "for similar development, note the word..." as if you a doing an impersonation of a university professor giving a lecture with digressing slides I find inappropriate. Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts. JesseRafe (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that I'm in the wrong? Don't make me laugh. If you still think that I am in the wrong after all of this, that's ridiculous. Why would I need to cite something that I wrote when I had other citations within that edit that I plan to include if I reinstate the proper etymology. The fact that the particular version of the page "Yo" was not present back when those old arguments were made does not change the fact that THE SAME ETYMOLOGY THAT YOU INSIST UPON WAS PRESENT in the version of the page even back then. As such, my point still stands. Also, your personal opinion on the value of the etymology of "Yo" is not relevant to the discussion at hand. And, again, the edit that I plan to make will have plenty of references. Rest assured. Finally, what does it matter if you don't like my method of writing. It's not actually unencyclopediac as you claim. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

We've all been bamboozled by the so called "refs" in the etymology section

Let's analyze one after the other the "refs" added by some funny person as supposedly being published proof for 'yo' being cognate with an ancient form on 'yes' in english: the link http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=no doesn't mention AT ALL 'yo' in anay manner at all, it has nothing to do in the wikipedia article.

The following "proof" http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2727&context=wordways , presented in a pdf document written by a certain "Brooke Maxey" that relates yo to old germanic forms of modern 'yes' , is not a reliable source. Who the heck is Brooke Maxey? From what I read, he is an obscure writer who has apparently written papers and articles. That is not something valid for wikipedia as it not peer reviewed, unless it is presented as a possible theory amongst others. I'm sorry, by the way, he only said in his paper (if you took the time to read it) that 'yo' was considered being a slang equivalent of 'yes' in southern military schools.

As for the next ref presented as proof for "yes" , http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=yeoman , it si etymonline's entry for 'yeoman' and in absolutely no way shape or form does the etymology of yeoman relate to any form of "yes" if you read the entry : it relates to the ancient versions of "young" in english, not "yes", as the entry specifies. The prefix yeo- in yeoman comes from various germanic terms ga,ge, gea, gau, gawi all relating to the countryside, the village, as in frisian 'gaman'. Unfortunately the article does not relate to the interjection 'yo ! ' anyhow.

Now,concerning page 157 of the book " Words in Dictionaries and History: Essays in Honour of R.W. McConchie" , I do have this book and page 157 is just the beginning of a chapter that tries to show the various attmpts of explaining the etymology of 'yeoman' comparing folk etymology, early 17th century explanations and so on. NOWHERE is 'yo' as an interjection explained nor its etymology considered, only the prefix 'yeo-" in the word 'yeoman' is considered: the possibilities of the prefix meaning young, gay (in the sense of merry) IF someone wants me to copy the page here in text form, I'll do it since googlebooks does not have the page in free viewing.(pages 157-159 are hidden). More on the subject: the book in question speaks about the theory of yeo- in yeoman as cognate with "yes" only at page 160. There it is said that (amongst dozens of other theories for the etymoliogy of yeoman) an author named Mahn wrote for Webster in 1864 that the prefix yeo was cognate with old english forms of yes ( quote from page 160 " 'Mahn (in Webster 1864) also traced yeo- to a prefix. However, his view dif‑fered from Grimm’s, for he identified yeo- with ye- in Engl. yes. Since yea, of which yes is an extended variant, continues OE gē, related to ja in Gothic, German, and Dutch, the resulting meaning of yeoman (from an affirmative particle and man) has little to recommend it. ' " ). The book then gives on page 161 a conclusion on the "most likely" etymology for yeoman and especially the prefix yeo: apparently in old english the prefix "oe" was added to mean " that comes after", so that yeoman simply means "one who comes after a man" in the sense of a squire, a servant, a peasant who serves a noble.

Yes, you just read it, in the book, they do NOT agree with this funky idea of yeo- in yeoman related to "yes" . Alas, the whole wikipedia entry for "yo" is taken almost verbatim from page 160 and twisted around, even refenecing this page as being a support for yo coming form an old form of "yes" and THIS is where the trick resides: a peculiar and isolated theory for the etymology of yeoman that has been generally dismissed since then (reminder: 1864). Because when you look at Oxford , Merriam-Webster and Etymonline's entries for "yo" they have NO ACTUAL OFFICIAL ETYMOLOGY for the intejection yo, just the date it's been used for the first time (15th century) and the fact that it has something to do with Old English. Which means the person who wrote the section on wikipedia is just bamboozling everyone with his "yo equals old english form of yes" by using refs that ion no manner prove it (the worse one being the etymonline page for "no" that is out of subject since it doesn't even mention "yo" nor any ancient forms) , the only ref supposedly proving it being an obscure article (by "Brooke Maxey"...) with nothing to connect the said article to (is it a book? a newspaper or magazine article? an excerpt froma thesis? just a personal note? ...) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I only skimmed this as it was kinda unreadable, your thoughts could be stronger presented if condensed, but I agree on the whole. Please see the above conversations with one stubborn individual editor who stymied the process and got their esoteric version of their preferred etymology in this article. And yes, "bamboozled" is a perfect term for what transpired. I recall trying in vain to prove that just because one editor was citing random crap didn't make it not random crap, and that that editor was trying to claim that actual published books establishing "yo" in its modern sense (not as an unrelated two-letter word that doubtlessly has been used before Shakespeare) were wrong and s/he was right was based entirely on Original Research, but had to compromise with this version that contains both the nonsense etymology and the 20th century origins. JesseRafe (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, both JesseRafe and the IP should be assuming good faith. Second, IP fellow, just because you don't like an author doesn't mean that they are not reliable. Third, JesseRafe, if you are still trying to suggest that yo comes from Italian, I won't be able to take you seriously anymore. The word was used from at least the Middle English period onwards, and has notably been used in nautical vocabulary ever since the Golden Age of the Pirates. Traditional pirates in most cases either used the local vocabulary of their area, some archaic nautical terms, and/or borrowed words from Dutch. They were not known for haphazardly borrowing Italian pronouns for use as interjections. So please, drop it already. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The references were cleaned up. Google that Brook Maxey, nothing relevant. OR by proxy. The others had remained for quite some time but were not in "reference" to anything mentioned in the article, namely to "yeoman", "no" (!!!), and the Pirate sing-song schpiel, "yeo-ho" more commonly seen as "yo ho" and being added to "other uses" section now. JesseRafe (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I restored the references because they are not nonsense. Feel free to remove the "yeoman" stuff though.

NOTE: I have to go somewhere, I'll be back later.Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Further

Since a certain individual insisted upon wasting my time proving something that is already proven, I am going to look through every single nautical grammar and wordbook that was published in the 17th and 18th centuries:

The first one (which I have listed in the article now) has the full citation of:

Smith, John: The Seaman's Grammar and Dictionary. R. Mount, 1705. 163 pp. Identical to the 1692 edition. First edition 1626. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

For all that is holy, STOP. You're so clueless in your zeal to publish falsehoods, that you don't even realize that you're adding the ETYMOLOGY OF NO twice! That doesn't belong at all! This isn't the place for your personal musings, "compare the etyymology of no". No! It's not relevant AT ALL. End of story. Your silly "yeo ho, ahoy!" got its own place in the "other uses" section. It its not part of the etymology of the modern world and it does not mean "yes" nor "yeoman". It just doesn't. End of story. Just stop your nonsense. JesseRafe (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thou art the one trying to publish falsehoods, fellow. Furthermore, I am doing research, not original research. Because of thine insistence that I waste my time proving the truth, I am looking through every single nautical text that I can find from the 17th and 18th centuries that proves the blatantly obvious thing that thou seemest to for whatever reason not understand. Yo before and yo today are one and the same. I am going to get thee boatloads of references proving this obvious fact. So stop reverting edits whilst I am slowly adding references to this page.

The etymology of "no" is relevant, because of how it developed from Old English to Modern English. So stop removing it. It's a pain to put back legitimate references after thou spammest "HNGHNGHNG REVERTREVERTREVERT" rather than waiting patiently. Hold thy horses. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ha, "hold thine horses"? Take your own advice. Wait til you're done, then add them all together. Don't leave half-assed "research" on the site in the meantime. Further, you clearly missed my point about your zeal for the USELESS and IRRELEVANT link to the etymology of "no" that you put it on twice. For no reason, and your context is just "compare..." No. That is not appropriate. It has no bearing on this conversation. Also, wow, I seriously wonder how you took offense when I first called your manner of communication "affected", jeez, what was I thinking? JesseRafe (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It is true that my use of "thou" is affected. However, I use it when addressing one of the following: 1. an individual that I am close with 2. an individual that I am trying to make clear that I am personally addressing directly 3. an individual that I am trying to make clear that I am personally addressing directly because of their seeming lack of understanding elsewise.

Nevertheless, as much as it might seem that I am a "blowhard" or a "pompous jerkwad" or whatever other misconception might be had of me, such is not the case, and most people that I have worked with understand that. This is one of the first instances where someone has so egregiously misunderstood my intent, and then insisted upon purely hostile communication following said misunderstanding.

Perhaps you think that, without being cold and hostile, I wouldn't "get the point", that I would "try to take advantage of civility", "would sheistily waltz around the issue so as to obtain my desired outcome" or something of that sort. Well if that is what you go about your day thinking of others, I feel very sorry for you. I personally believe in assuming the best of individuals until proven otherwise, as well as judging each situation individually and by its own merits. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Totally Shocked

That the only actually correct etymology (from guaglione) is yet again not on the page. Just totally shocked.

24rhhtr7 (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

"Misappropriation"

In this edit [1] and edit summary, User:W124l29 has written in wikipedia's voice that the word "yo" has been misappropriated by African American musicians. The only sources seem to be a wikilink to cultural appropriation and a link to "mis-appropriation" in an online amateur dictionary of etymology. In addition he has added five consecutive identical references to the word "yo" in the same online dictionary. None of these are reliable sources. The phrase about "cultural diffusion and dialectal loan word" is also W124l29's own creation. He includes as his source a link to a short online article by the academic linguist Walt Wolfram which does not mention the word "yo". These and other additions by W124l29 are not improvements to the article. Mathsci (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In good faith, I do believe that you have misread what I typed. I don't understand as to why you wouldn't simply message me about this. Regardless, I'll digress. The entire point of Urbandictionary is that it is a dictionary of slang terms, where those given slang terms, each cited entry being unique and not identical, are very much representative of general colloquial belief regarding the folk etymology of "yo"--as opposed to the etymological dictionary's definition, which is in no way amateur being as that it is quoted in academic papers, various E-dictionaries, &c, and has extensive & correct research given as cited on its sources page. If you would rather that I find a 3rd-party quotation instead of my own words for "dialectal loan word", a phrase as much words as any other sentence typed on Wikipedia, then I'm sure that we can come to find that together. The cited article from PBS describes, from an expert source with additional recommended readings appended, how cultural diffusion very much exists, functions with regard to specifics about types of diffusion, and how such cultural diffusion of language occurs in examples within the USA--the topic of that portion of that section of this Wikipedia article "Yo". So, I disagree that my edits are not improvements, as they are clear citations supporting both additions of mine aswell as already-existing accepted edits by others. If my citations are either too many per point or not best conforming to Wikipedia's style, then I would very much appreciate help in that regard. If my citations would be better replaced with others from other sources, then I would be interested in how I might achieve such. All stated, I likewise do not understand as to why you are editing this page at this moment. You don't appear to have edited this page before, and rather appear to have followed me from a Sockpuppet Investigation. Sincerely.W124l29 (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It's simply not a WP:Good source and that's the end of the matter. JesseRafe (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, I would like for you to respond on your talk page, as I began the conversation there. For efficiency's sake. I'm looking forward to reading your explanation in further detail.W124l29 (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please keep discussions about the content of this article here and not on user talk pages. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The content was not the topic of discussion, but rather this editor's increasingly rude behavior. Thanks for the suggestion, regardless. W124l29 (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017

echo is off — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yo666 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2017

I think that this is the true etymology for this term as it relates to the Philadelphia accent... In the Neapolitan dialect "guaglione" (pronounced guahl-YO-nay) signified a young man. The chiefly unlettered immigrants shortened that to guahl-YO, which they pronounced whal-YO. That was inevitably further shortened to yo. The common greeting among young Italian-American males was "Hey, whal-YO!", and then simply, "Yo!" And so it remains today. 65.107.122.222 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Cool story, bro! Find some citations of scholarly work that also attest this claim and we can add them to the article. As it stands now this is nothing but a [popular] folk etymology. Addition declined. JesseRafe (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Reversion I disagree with: yo used to get someone's attention

I added the following: yo is used "to get someone's attention (it is used this way in the Wikipedia Template:yo)".

This was reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yo&oldid=prev&diff=828091349 deisenbe (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I found that undue meta commentary unnecessary for an encyclopedia to refer to itself, especially in the lede. Maybe in a "see also" section, but it seems like trivia. JesseRafe (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2023

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

---

• Yo → Yo (greeting)
• Yo (disambiguation) → Yo

– No primary topic for this simple two-letter combination. Hard to measure, but no evidence that this has more long-term significance than the Spanish pronoun. Pageviews only barely clear the field. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support Yoruba language has 15,824 views compared with only 8,840[[2]] for the greeting. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

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.