Talk:History of the Chinese language

message: https://www.academia.edu/34800805/Chinese_Cambridge_Language_Surveys_Jerry_Norman
"The Chinese script appears as a fully developed writing system in the late
Shang dynasty (fourteenth to eleventh centuries BC)."
This would mean around 3000 to 4000 years old, not 6000.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 16:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotation for age in incorrect, J. Norman (1988) in page 4 says: "The history of Chinese language can be traced back to approximately the middle of the second millennium BC, to the period known historically as the Shang dynasty (sixteenth to eleventh centuries BC).” --Davius (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect date of age? 

message: Can anyone confirm the section on Sichuan being emptied by a plague in the 12th century, and then recolonized by settlers from the North? If not, I suggest deleting that part; I've been trying to confirm the information and didn't find anything.
Other parts of the article contain dubious information; for example the claim that "virtually all" mainland Chinese speak Standard Mandarin; in reality, it's probably closer to 50%. The article should probably be checked by an expert.
Rara bb 01:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=viWF1UZqKC8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=6MbuYAWdKh4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=zBJiZC7_ii8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=lUIj3ONg_MEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical, old, and ancient chinese 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 11:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 07:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: I'm wondering if this article serves any significant purpose. Except for the section on Sino-Tibetan, almost all of the content appears on the Chinese language Wikipedia page. It seems like there's no reason for this page to exist unless it's a more in-depth coverage of the history of the language. At present, it is not that. Pathawi (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hellllllllllllloooooo 103.46.200.195 (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello! 

message: This divide bedevils everyone writing about Chinese anything. I reckon History of the Chinese language and History of Chinese characters could both be full articles, but I'm curious what others may think. I wouldn't want to actually split until I fill out this article enough so that it would actually create two self-standing articles though. Remsense诉 05:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split into spoken/written? 

message: in Spoken Chinese section. 98.45.47.245 (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty bad currently, yes. It's on my list of big articles to completely revamp. Remsense诉 00:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar is unintelligible