Talk:Contraction of am not

New article?
Seems to me that "ain't" should have its own article, given that well over half of the uses of "ain't" in Contraction of am not are not, in fact, contractions of "am not", but rather the other contractions of "ain't", such as "is not", "have not", etc. I'd propose leaving the relevant "ain't" stuff here with the "amn't" stuff, and moving the rest to a new Ain't article. Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well of course, that's what we had until the article was moved here. Most of the discussion above relates to the article entitled "ain't". :-)  --Doric Loon (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, that makes sense. But since most of the content of this article doesn't relate to its title, shouldn't there be two articles - one that talks only about contractions of "am not", and one that talks about the various contractions of "ain't"? I'd do it myself, but I understand there are issues with preserving history and so forth when you reuse an old article title. Dohn joe (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Split request
See above for reasoning. For now, I'd have the first half of the current article (with differing leads) in both Contraction of am not and Ain't, and then move the rest (Linguistic prescription, Deliberate usage, and Notable examples) to Ain't. Another option would be to move all of the "ain't" sections to Ain't, leaving just a link on Contraction of am not. Again, I'd do it if I knew how to reconcile the history pages. Dohn joe (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Done, after consultation. Dohn joe (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What consultation? This seems pretty dumb to me to split this material up. -- Evertype·✆ 10:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The consultation was just on technically how to do it (which I proceeded to mess up anyhow). As for the move itself, the reasoning was that since ain't is more than a contraction of just am not, Contraction of am not should not be the principal page discussing ain't.


 * Here's the full story: Originally, Amn't and Ain't were separate articles. Earlier this year, after a discussion, Amn't was merged into Ain't. A few months later, Ain't was moved to Contraction of am not, which created the problem I was trying to solve - that ain't is not just a contraction of am not. I left Contraction of am not in its current form because while Contraction of am not and Ain't have a lot of overlapping material, one is not quite a subset of the other. That said, if people think the amn't material ought to be moved to the "Related words" section of Ain't, or something along those lines, that's fine, too.


 * What are your (or anyone's) thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ain't and amn't? -- Evertype·✆ 17:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've integrated the amn't material into the Ain't article. My vote would be to leave Ain't as the title; as for this article, should it be kept as it is, moved back to Amn't, or merged officially into Ain't to preserve the Amn't history? Dohn joe (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the two should be merged into Ain't. -- Evertype·✆ 18:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Amn't and Contraction of am not now redirect to Ain't. Dohn joe (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I object to the merging of amn't into ain't. I do not like the implication that amn't is a variation of ain't. Having two articles, on Ain't and Contraction of am not, was a much better solution. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by "variation". You know, there's no pleasing everyone, and in point of fact the information contained in the TWO articles is probably of interest to most people interested in either one. Now, Amn't points to this article, and I'm happy with them being both in the sam article, but I would be willing to move both of them together (not split) to a Ain't and amn't. I will however edit the lead. -- Evertype·✆ 06:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made it so. One article. I also revised it so that the two terms were handled more evenly. -- Evertype·✆ 07:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey folks. I made another argument for leaving the title as Ain't over at Ain't and amn't. Take a look and let me know what you think. Dohn joe (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)