Talk:List of varieties of Chinese

message: some immature, imbecile mind messed up the mandarin dialect section by turning "Luoyang" and "Zhengzhou dialect" into "Mooshu pork and Zhousee dialect" respectively. Attempted to fix that  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.213.38 (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Where does Shandong fit in? Thanks ~ Dpr 06:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shandong

message: What is Shao Jiang under the Min section? Should the major groups of Min (Min Dong, Min Nan, etc.) be converted into subsections (=== ===)? Are the Haifeng and Lufeng dialects belonging to the Chaoshan division? Are Shantou and Chaozhou two different dialects? Thanks. — Instantnood 08:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shaojiang is Shaowu (邵武) + Jiangle (将乐). Some regard it as a transition zone between Min and Gan + Hakka. No need for subsections. Haifeng / Lufeng do belong to Min Nan, as for whether they belong to Chaoshan, it depends on how you define "Chaoshan". As for whether Shantou and Chaozhou are different "dialects", this depends on how you define "dialect". Of course they are different dialects, but they can also be classified into the same dialect division, and because Chaoshan identity is very strong, people also speak of a unified Chaoshan dialect. -- ran (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some questions about Min

message: Re  - This is English-language Wikipedia, and we shall order the languages by their names in English. Some languages have their names entered the English vocabularies before Pinyin was invented, and these names are still in popular use, while for other languages the common names are the Pinyin ones. — Instantnood 20:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an English encyplopedia, yes, but "Cantonese" is but another romanisation method as is for Pinyin and others, so the word "Cantonese" is by no means more English than "Yue". It is unweldy to have a list which switches between more than one method, hence my preference for sticking to just one.--Huaiwei 03:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Use common names. --Yuje 04:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case, Mandarin will have to be renamed as the Chinese language.--Huaiwei 05:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if you're able to effectively argue that Mandarin isn't a common name. --Yuje 05:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please stop changing the page every time you enter a comment on the discussion page. Just leave it as is for the time being, and sort it out here. Afterwards you can change it to whatever conclusion you came to.  Mlewan 07:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose some folks somehow think they are justified to do reverts just by inputting comments in the talkpage, when the talkpage is meant for members to form concensus before editing. I am no angel, but at least I do not start removing KL Cantonese from this list while discussing it above.--Huaiwei 09:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to hear you mentioning concensus, when you altered the list ordering without that very concensus in the first place. And I cited the Wikipedia:Use common names policy, which is already a long-established body of concensus among all of Wikipedians, not only Chinese language-related articles. --Yuje 09:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if you have an issue with the lack of concensus, why do you then impose your own ordering sequence, also without concensus? Wikipedia:Use common names is of course a long-established concensus, but it also allows for exceptions especially when POV is in question. If not, China will be talking about the People's Republic of China, Taiwan will refer to the Republic of China, Hokkien will refer to Min, and the Chinese language will be equated with Mandarin, with all other dialects seen as subservient to it. That is common usage for you, so where is your consistency? I argue, that an alphabetical list using a common romanisation system in this page helps reduce POV, which once listed Mandarin above a random listing of other dialect groups. For what reason should we accept "common names" for some dialects, but not others, without inviting POV issues? Or do you simply have an insecurity issue with Y coming after all other letters compared to C?--Huaiwei 09:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ordering of the lists is not particularly important, but changing the opening paragraph to imply that only a single Chinese language exists is most definitely not NPOV. In the interest of concensus building, I'll let you change it back yourself. --Yuje 10:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ordering once had Mandarin leading the rest of the pack, so if you found that "unimportant", are you implying you do not mind it happening again? I doubt you genuinely felt it was as "unimportant" as claimed to revert war over it. As for the leading sentence, are you now going to attempt revamping the entire Chinese language article and claim all Chinese dialects as independent from it?--Huaiwei 12:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Some languages have their contemporary common names entering English before Pinyin was invented, while for the others the contemporary common names used in English are the Pinyin ones. I fail to see any POV issue comparable to the case of China, PRC, ROC, Taiwan. — Instantnood 18:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does "pinyin coming after some contemporary common names" contribute anything to this debate? The fact that an edit war has occured here for nothing more than the ordering of the various dialects is itself proof that POV is invovled here, and you are one of the main contributors to this edit warring. The more this disputes rages on, the more POV-laden it becomes, so try "arguing" against that.--Huaiwei 19:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is English-language Wikipedia, and the groups should be arranged according to their English names. Their most common English names should always be used, regardless of whether the most common English names are Pinyin or not. — Instantnood 15:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Excuse me for pointing out.. Hokkien does not refer to Min, but Min Nan, or the Amoy dialects, dialects in close proximity with it, and their derivatives. Nobody would consider Teochiu, which is part of the Min Nan group, or the Min Dong, Puxian, etc., groups, as Hokkien. — Instantnood 18:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about others, but I certainly do not need that kind reminder about my own dialect. Read the context of the above statement, and tell me if I am making any claims that Hokkien actually = Min.--Huaiwei 19:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine if you are clear about that. Not everyone is as familiar with the matter as you do. — Instantnood 15:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not have to. It is plain to see that many assume Mandarin = Chinese, even if that is inaccurate. And that happens even in Singapore where multiple Chinese dialects prevail. List restored.--Huaiwei 09:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order

message: I do accept dialects coming from different areas of Guangdong province, Hong Kong, Macau. But to include Kuala Lumpur Cantonese as a dialect is misleading. It is a regional variation of the standard cantonese used on the mainland. For example, tv shows in Malaysia are mainly in cantonese syndicated from Hong Kong. The regional difference is just the vocab mixed with malay and hokkien words. I am not going to remove it from the cantonese sub section. Maybe its just worth a mention and hopefully someone can create an article for it. Right now, it points to nothing in wikipedia.
The linguistic variation is greater in Penang Hokkien and MinnanHua, so I think most people would accept it is a regional dialect localised with Malay. 
As for KL cantonese over time, the influences from HK will make it more standardised.
--Visik 14:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cantonese dialects

message: Change the Chinese to traditional.
100110100 10:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles), no preference is given for topics that are not geographically specific. --Jiang 09:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional! 

message: The discussion is clearly closed.100110100 10:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The emphasis of this article is on dialects. Please do not need to come here to look for Chinese languages. And the new name can be confused with Languages of China (Chinese languages and languages of China essentially mean the same thing) --Jiang 09:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, tell me honestly if most of these you called dialects are mutally intelligebale or not.  Please leave a link or the reply also on my talk page; that way I can reply sooner.100110100 00:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  *Renaming 

message: I'm not a linguist, but I'm not so sure they deserved to be mentioned.  Mostly because they've never been referred to as seperate dialects before.  And to the best of my knowledge, "Guangzhou dialect" is Standard Cantonese.  --- Hong Qi Gong 20:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. There are in fact academic research on their differences, c.f. . — Instantnood 21:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I'm not a linguist, but Seiyap Cantonese is very different from Standard Cantonese.  I happen to understand it a little.  Only knowing Standard Cantonese, you'd only understand maybe half of a conversation in Seiyap.  HK and Macao "dialects", on the other hand, are not so different from Standard Cantonese, and the two are mutually understandable to Standard Cantonese.  I've personally never seen them classified as dialects in their own right.  If we are to split off HK and Macao Cantonese, does that not also mean we have to basically mention Cantonese being spoken everywhere around the world?  No doubt there are some local deviations everywhere Cantonese is spoken.  --- Hong Qi Gong 21:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, not all "academic" texts are "academic", nor are all of them to be taken at face value. The academic world is not neccesarily comformist, hence there can always be any academic work claiming the existance of nothing for nothing more than academic discourse. Are we to then take this as fact? I find it disturbing, hence, how some folks persist in digging deep into cyberspace just to find any publication, irrespective of its quality and intentions, so long that it happens to support a certain viewpoint. Many of the souces listed in  demonstrates this. Have we forgotten to realise, that what wikipedia actually attempts to do, is not to document every obscure viewpoint, but to state what is more likely to be commonly accepted by respectable texts? So in this regard, how many respectable texts actually declare the existance of distinct "dialects" such as the above?--Huaiwei 14:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  That's why I think we should agree on a set of sources and only use those sources for the list.  --- Hong Qi Gong 14:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think it will be possible to actually define a fixed set of sources, but it should be possible to verify the quality of each source cited. Publications by reputable authors in reputable journals and which receive a significant number of citations should normally take precedence over a website maintained by a linguist enthusiast, even if the later claims to have cited from other reputable sources.--Huaiwei 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guangzhou, HK, and Macao dialects??? 

message: I'd like to make a suggestion that we agree on using a set of sources and that we list what's on those sources and only what's on those sources.  With the way that linguists disagree on how to categorise languages and dialects, this page would just be victim to endless adding and removing of languages/dialects.  However, if we can stick to only an agreed set of sources, we can stop the endless adding and removing.  Having said that, this is a webpage I've often used in the past - .
Another suggestion I'd like to make is that we add a section to the article specifically for these "dialects" like Kuala Lumpur, HK, Macao, etc.  These "dialects" don't usually show up on a list of Chinese dialects.  But I don't doubt that there are linguists and other experts who have talked about them like they were dialects in their own rights.  --- Hong Qi Gong 23:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are going to use a single source, Ethnologue is awfully hard to beat. On the other hand, though, I don't see this page as having been subject of a flurry of add/delete storms. The KL dialect is a counter-example, of course, but it seems like we'd be solving a problem that we rarely have by trying to limit ourselves to a single source like you suggest. --Waitak 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't have to use just one single source.  That might be too restricting.  But ethnologue.com does seem like a really good source.  --- Hong Qi Gong 04:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, I didn't read carefully enough. You indeed did not suggest using a single source. Perhaps someone would like to go through and add Ethnologue tags and/or links for the languages, dialects and variants in this list? --Waitak 06:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: I would advise that the names be rewritten in traditional.100110100 00:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And your reasoning for the above request? Meanwhile, I would like to point out that most entries here were actually writtern in both scripts.--Huaiwei 13:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not have both traditional and simplified? (tyger 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My Reasoning is that when Mao Zi Dong instigated Simplifed, his academics went around china & made not of the Simplifieds that they encountered.  For one thing, this makes Simplifed arbitrary, & unrepresentitive.  For another thing, it would be impossible to search out EVERY form of a traditional Chinese character.100110100 22:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you wrote didn't make sense to me...do you mean that just because Mao Zi Dong "created" this written form it should be removed from wiki articles? According to Wikipedia's article on Simplified, "simplified forms used in print have always existed (they date back to as early as the Qin Dynasty (221 - 206 BC), though early attempts at simplification actually resulted in more characters being added to the lexicon)." (link). Attempts at convertion has been around before Mao, he was just the first one to actually get it done. Anyway, I'm digressing. My main point is that whoever it may be that made the change, it doesn't remove the fact that both simplified and traditional are used outside of Wikipedia. Overseas, mainland, wherever (see 臺 to 台). You even have shinjitai appearing in Japanese text. (tyger 16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplified To Traditional 

message: What is and when did "Cancerese" become equated with "Gwainaam" and why is there a mix of non-Mandarin and Mandarin readings for the names of these dialects? For example "Yuklam" would have been Yulin amongst others. Dylanwhs 07:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancerese 

message: The Heshan Dialect (鶴山話) is classified as as a Siyi dialect, but I am fairly sure that this is not the case. I am sure this can be verified by using one of the typical historical correspondences, such as the "t" test: does Heshan have the "t" in 他 and the "d" in 打? Tone correspondences are also reliable indicators. Nevertheless, even though I dispute Heshan's placement in Siyi, I'm sure it has a suitable placement in another one of the subdialect groups, but I just don't know which group this would be. Any help? -- Aaron Lee 17:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heshan Dialect Classification

message: I notice the change here by User:Contributor168.  I really don't understand this. How can a notable dialect like Danjia dialect 蜑家話 be removed?  Is this vandalism or is there no such thing as an actual dialect for the Danjia people?  I didn't see the dialect moved elsewhere. Benjwong (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not understand the recent edit

message: Sorry about that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor168 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I have put Danjia dialect back in

message: Can anybody tell me why Longdu Dialect is under Min (Hokkien) language and not under Yue (Cantonese) language?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc87 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed a dialect belonging to the Min division. http://www.zsnews.cn/ZT/ZSZX/2006/02/28/545827.shtml Contributor168 (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Longdu Dialect

message: I have moved Guzhen dialect from Zhongshan dialect to Siyi division-Xinhui dialect because according to this article, http://www.zsnews.cn/Backup/2007/07/06/692539.shtml, Guzhen dialect is a branch of Siyi dialect. Although this webpage states that Guzhen dialect is similar to Taishanese, most aricles I've read state it is similar to Xinhui dialect, for example this one http://www.zs.gov.cn:82/gate/big5/www.zs.gov.cn/main/about/content/index.action?id=39182 Contributor168 (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification of Zhongshan dialects

message: First of all I don't understand why this article should have simplified hanzi followed by traditional hanzi where the typical sequence for the two is opposite.
Secondly, I don't understand what is intended by Hokkien (Mintai division) - 福建話 (閩台片) / 福建话 （闽台片）. Mintai does not appear in any other article and it doesn't seem to be used in classifications of Min languages. 閩台片 and 闽台片 suggest versions of Fujian and Taiwan dialects or languages. I don't know if using that is proper and, if it is, I don't see why it shouldn't be used in the Min languages articles.
Third, Amoy and Taiwanese appear to be parallel languages. The way they are presented in this article, due to indentation, suggests that Taiwanese derives from Amoy which I don't think it's the case, at least after looking at the articles on Amoy and Taiwanese.
ICE77 (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequence, subset and classification 

message: The map shows Xinjiang as Mandarin speaking but not Inner Mongolia or Tibet. This seems hugely problematic to me. Either all three antonymous provinces should be marked as non-Chinese speaking, or, more accurately to the on the ground situation, all of them should be marked as Mandarin. Tibetologist (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Map