Talk:Sinitic languages

message: Changed the redirect from Sino-Tibetan languages to Spoken Chinese, which discusses "Chinese dialects". "Chinese languages" would have been better, except that redirects to Chinese language, which is more Mandarin-centric.
Reasons for this change: a quick Google Scholar search shows the usage to be referring to Chinese dialects, not to Sino-Tibetan languages in general. In fact, the term "Sinitic languages" is used to contrast to "non-Sinitic languages in China" including Tibetan (so "Sinitic languages" should not be equivalent to "Sino-Tibetan languages"). Similarly, all the internal links which pointed here are using it in the sense of "Chinese dialects". cab 12:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: There is no linguistic point whatsoever to the "Comparison to European Languages" chart.  There is no relationship, there is no borrowing, it is just an exercise in looking up words in a dictionary.  I'm removing it as a waste of space with no function whatsoever.  --Taivo (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This inclusion of European languages here is still just a pointless exercise in looking up words in a dictionary and serves no valid linguistic function.  If you want to show valid differences between the Sinitic languages, then find a chart that does that, but the inclusion of European languages isn't any more valid than including Australian languages or Bantu languages or any other non-Sinitic languages.  It's a pointless waste of space that serves NO valid linguistic function.  --Taivo (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, since the chart isn't even sourced, it is original research and is an invalid Wikipedia addition anyway.  --Taivo (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Such notions as "see how this is like/unlike Europe" are extremely antiquated.  And "people have put a fair amount of work into it" shows that it is WP:OR.  And even if it is a valid point, sandwiching the Chinese dialects between no less than 7 Indo-European columns is extreme overkill.  Someone has made a beautiful, but ultimately useless chart of questionable linguistic utility.  --Taivo (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting work into something doesn't make it OR. I won't venture an opinion as to whether it should be there or not. — kwami (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged the offending table.  I could be wrong, but I highly suspect that it is OR.  --Taivo (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Looks like User:Symane is back trying to peddle his Europe-Sinitic "comparison".  If anyone thought there was a relationship between Europe and East Asia, it would be relevant, but a chart showing common vocabulary between Sinitic and Uto-Aztecan is just as relevant as this pointless original research.  --Taivo (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

text: That's not the point. It's not trying to show a connection between Chinese and anything else. It's simply trying to show the diversity of Chinese (which is commonly accepted as a single language) is comparable to the diversity of Romance (which are accepted as a family of languages). That may be OR, and it may not be beneficial to have here, but I don't understand the repeated mischaracterizations of it. Comparisions to UA would be just as relevant if most English speakers were familiar with UA, but they're not. What percentage of English speakers do you think could identify Hopi or Shoshone as a UA language? Most English speakers have at least a passing familiarity with French, Spanish, or Italian, or with Romance in general, if for no other reason than the huge number of loans in English, which is why they're more relevant to English speakers than the many other comparisons which could be made. — kwami (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two problems with this chart.  First, I'm fairly certain that it is OR.  Second, unless there are reliable sources that make such a comparison in chart form, it's simply vanity.  I'm certain that there are probably sources that state something like, "The differences between the Sinitic languages is comparable to Romance", I doubt there are charts out there.  I'm not opposed to referenced text, but adding this huge chart is an undue use of space to make a simple statement.  It places undue emphasis on the issue for the casual reader, who is generally unsophisticated linguistically, and may lead some to see a comparative chart.  --Taivo (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that's a good argument. — kwami (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with European Languages 

message: Greetings and felicitations.  The infobox reference (ref. no. 1) is giving the error "|chapterurl= missing title".  Hopefully someone more knowledgable than I can fix this. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox error (minor) 

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: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Chinese languages and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 5#Chinese languages until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  NasssaNser - T 14:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chinese languages" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I am quite confused by your recent removal of Min and Waxiang from the infobox. Their addition to the infobox as top-level branches of Sinitic wasn't to suggest the Greater Bai languages are Chinese, but rather because it's theorized that Min and Waxiang (especially Min) split from Old Chinese rather than Middle Chinese like other Chinese languages. And the theory that the Greater Bai languages may have been an early split from Old Chinese is the reason for their inclusion as a possible top-level branch of Sinitic. It'd be ludicrous to use one set of criteria for the Greater Bai languages but then throw that set of criteria out for the Min and Waxiang languages because they're commonly said to be Chinese dialects/languages. And of course, I don't mean to suggest that the Min languages aren't Chinese either, they certainly are in a sociolinguistic sense (and Sinitic being named Sinitic specifically is a rather superficial detail that doesn't change the phylogenetic relationships between the languages in question), but that's beside the point. The point is if the Greater Bai languages are considered a potential top-level branch of Sinitic because they may have split from Old Chinese, then the Min and Waxiang languages have to be included as a top-level branch based on the same criteria as Min is widely accepted to have split from Old Chinese rather than Middle Chinese like other varieties of Chinese, and Waxiang is sometimes theorized to have similarly split from Old Chinese. And if they aren't included despite that criterion, then it wouldn't make sense to include Greater Bai. ~Strawberry of Arctic Circle System (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , i think the previous layout was sufficiently clear Remsense聊 17:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate your response, I wasn't sure if wrote my point clearly or not. ~Strawberry of Arctic Circle System (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removal of Min and Waxiang from infobox