Talk:Chinese language#reqmovetag

{{Edit semi-protected|Chinese language|answered=yes}}

change "For most of this period, this language was a koiné based on dialects spoken in the Nanjing area, though not identical to any single dialect." to "For most of this period, this language was a koiné based on dialects spoken in the Nanjing area, though not identical to any single dialect." Ariakingstrom (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} Remsense ‥ 论 09:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|Chinese language|answered=yes}}

Under "=== Modern borrowings ===" in the paragraph "Western foreign words representing Western concepts have influenced Chinese...", {{zhc|迷你|p=mínǐ|l=miniskirt}} has a typo and syntax error such that the Chinese characters do not show in the final page. Furthermore, the translation for miniskirt should be 迷你裙 mínǐqún.

The final correction should be to change:

{{zhc|迷你|p=mínǐ|l=miniskirt}}

to:

{{zhc|s=迷你裙|p=mínǐqún|l=miniskirt}}

. AuzBuzzard (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Remsense ‥ 论 23:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The title of this article is somewhat misleading. The title of this article is "Chinese language" which is misleading because it suggests that Chinese is one language, when in reality this is far from the truth. Some of the different Chinese "dialects" mutually intelligible to a certain degree, while others are not, thus making some of them their own languages. Maybe the title of this article should be called "Chinese languages". Quinnly9 (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:It is characterized in several ways. A cursory glance will turn up Sinitic languages and Varieties of Chinese, which represent two lenses through which Chinese is viewed as a language family. Remsense ‥ 论 15:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'd support this move; seems like most of the lead section of the current article is hedging around calling it a "language" anyways (and it really isn't) Oeoi (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

This article mentions, in the context of lists and dictionaries of chinese words, "head entry" and "head character" as if the reader is supposed to know what that means. I'm a reader and I sure don't. At the point in the article these terms are used, I can't even guess whether they refer to some 'parent' (or root) or to simply the 'first encountered character' (of a word, and if so is there a direction involved (left-to-right, for example)). Here's a suggestion: if you're going to use a term that the reader isn't likely to be familiar with, then define it. Obvious, no? (I couldn't even guess whether a head entry is synonymous with a head character.) I need to know how non-head characters are related to head characters (or entries...ARE there "non-head" entries? No idea.) I understand that language comprehension, even a synthetic written language like standard chinese, requires some boot-strapping. That is, you have to know something about it to learn something about it. (or at least, it's much easier if you do.) But why not make it easier on the reader and DEFINE YOUR TERMS. Heck, maybe go all out and explain them! 98.19.179.27 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

{{requested move/dated|Chinese languages}}

:Chinese language → {{no redirect|Chinese languages}} – The entire second paragraph of the lead section refers to "Chinese languages" as the subject, and points out how the languages are not mutually intelligible. Oeoi (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 12:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Chinese" is usually spoken of in the singular and this article needs to approach it that way, so a move would not help. Srnec (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. that topic is at Sinitic languages, which even has a hat-note link from here - a more reasonable approach IMO would be to make this article a rd to standard chinese — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamikagami (talk • contribs) 08:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Standard Chinese is a variety (the standard form) of Mandarin Chinese, which is itself one of the varieties of Chinese that make up the Chinese language(s), so that redirect would definitely not be advisable! Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support (after a lot of mulling and research). My gut feeling is that the subject of this article is so broad that it should be treated as a broad-concept article, with the plural title to represent its status as a macrolanguage, and maybe more emphasis should be given to the disputed status of "languages" vs "dialects" (to be honest, after looking into this at some length, I feel like this debate should really have its own article!). As mentioned by @Oeoi, the article is currently inconsistent, and frankly so is the whole topic, as there's very little consistency among articles; I don't think it would do any harm to introduce this clarification. "Chinese language" is an inherently ambiguous term, and I don't think we need an article with that title. To address @Srnec's point, Chinese language would stay as a redirect, and the lead would outline the basics (including the fact that Mandarin Chinese is the most commonly-spoken branch), so it shouldn't cause too much confusion for readers. To address @Kwamikagami's point, the Sinitic languages actually also include another branch, Macro-Bai languages, which is a proposed language family thought to have diverged from the Chinese language(s) at Old Chinese. It's much smaller than the Chinese branch, obviously, but it means that Sinitic languages and Chinese languages are in fact not wholly synonymous and so don't cover the same topic.{{pb}}In case anyone is interested in a more detailed explanation of my rationale on this (and/or wants to disagree with my arguments), I've laid out my reasoning at this sandbox (permalink) to avoid dominating this discussion with an essay-length comment (although this one is pretty long already!). It's largely a stream of consciousness that emerged as I read more about the debate, so it might not make much sense, but it does include some background/context as well as discussion of a useful source. Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :After writing the above comment, it's just occurred to me that there's another option—move this article to Chinese languages and make Chinese language a disambiguation page, along the lines of:{{pb}}Chinese language may refer to:{{bulleted list|Chinese languages, a group of related language varieties within the Sinitic languages{{pb}}{{bulleted list|Varieties of Chinese|List of varieties of Chinese}}|Standard Chinese, a modern standard form of Mandarin Chinese that is the official language of China{{pb}}{{bulleted list|Taiwanese Mandarin, the standard form of Mandarin Chinese that is the de facto official language of Taiwan|Singaporean Mandarin, the standard form of Mandarin Chinese that is one of the four official languages of Singapore}}|Languages of China|Written Chinese}}{{pb}}(etc.) I'd be interested to know what others think of this option. Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::a dab would work; the question is whether one of these topics so dominates that it should be at this location, and your proposal at 'chinese language [disambiguation]' — kwami (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::You make a good point... According to [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2022-06-21&end=2025-06-21&pages=Cantonese|Chinese_language|Standard_Chinese|Mandarin_Chinese|Taiwanese_Mandarin|Singaporean_Mandarin|Written_Chinese|Written_vernacular_Chinese|Varieties_of_Chinese|List_of_varieties_of_Chinese Pageviews Analysis] (and [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/?platform=all-access&agent=user&source=wikilinks&start=2022-06-21&end=2025-06-21&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&target=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Chinese_language Massviews Analysis] comparing articles linked from Template:Chinese language, just in case) there doesn't seem to be a convincing primary topic in terms of views. Is there another parameter or yardstick you had in mind? Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::i don't, and i don't care if this is a dab -- i just expect that you'll get a lot of pushback
• ::::i suppose that the prc vs roc split would be a good argument for having the dab here — kwami (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Fair enough! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I oppose this move because I oppose a dab page. See how quickly you went from telling me {{tq|Chinese language would stay as a redirect}} to proposing a dab page? My reasoning's the same as in the case of chimpanzee a few years back. A dab page is impossible for the average user because if they are looking for 'the Chinese language', they will have no idea what to do at a dab page! Just like the average user cannot pick between the common chimpanzee, the bonobo and the genus Pan. They just want to know about chimps! And if the typical user should probably select 'Chinese languages', that is an argument against a move. Srnec (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::{{ec}} I totally understand where you're coming from, and the only reason I raised the issue of disambiguation is because it hadn't been mentioned before; given that a move has been requested, it's worth discussing all the available options now to avoid repetitive/unnecessary RMs in future. Having said that, I don't think this case is anywhere near as clear-cut as with Chimpanzee; before the RM at Chimpanzee, the disambiguation page only had three links on it, plus a 'See also', and there was an [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2016-01-26&end=2019-01-26&pages=Chimpanzee_(disambiguation)|Chimpanzee|Chimpanzee_(film) unambiguous primary topic].{{pb}}Re the argument that the article title should be what {{tq|the average user}} would think of first, even at the expense of precision, see my reasoning here. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::: I actually really like the disambiguation page solution; it seems like the cleanest way to combine all of the numerous wikipedia articles and their internal conflicts about what to call Chinese Oeoi (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::It is normal for both regular folks and scholars to speak of "Chinese" as a language. We need an article that explains it concisely in the first paragraph(s). I think this one could do it a bit better, but I do not think a dab page can do it at all. It can just list different things and hope the reader can figure out what they want. Srnec (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Would anyone object to me notifying the WikiProjects listed at the top of this page (neutrally, obviously; using Template:RM notice) plus WikiProject Redirect and WikiProject Disambiguation? I feel like this is an important enough article that the discussion should have wide participation. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think this makes sense, especially since this relates to all the other articles in the "chinese languages" orbit Oeoi (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{block indent|em=1.6|1=Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Macau, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)}}

• Oppose. As I said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Archive 31#Potential RM for Chinese language a few years ago: {{tquote|I think "Chinese language" follows WP:COMMONNAME. My impression is that most sources, including many specialist sources, refer to "dialects of Chinese" rather than "Chinese languages". Those who follow the "mutual intelligibility" standard tend to disagree with this and say that Chinese is a family including many different languages. Personally, I like the "mutual intelligibility" standard, but it is certainly not the only standard out there (see Language#Languages and dialects). Of course we should clarify in the article that Chinese includes many mutually unintelligible varieties.}} See also [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Chinese+language%2CChinese+languages%2Cthe+Chinese+language%2Cthe+Chinese+languages&year_start=1900&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3 Ngrams]. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• :"chinese languages" tends to be used to mean the languages of china; for the language family, "sinitic languages" seems to be the norm — kwami (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Really? In my experience authors use "Chinese languages" as a synonym for Sinitic, and use "languages of China" when they mean that. For example, try searching for "Chinese languages" in Google Books or Google Scholar. Kanguole 21:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::could be, that's just what i recall
• :::you mean they use languages of China when by 'chinese languages' they mean the sinitic languages?
• :::if "Chinese languages" is predominantly a synonym for Sinitic, then i don't have any objection to using it that way on WP — kwami (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::"Chinese languages" is used as a synonym for Sinitic, and "languages of China" refers to the languages spoken in China. Ramsey is an example of the latter usage. Try the searches – the pattern is clear. Kanguole 21:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::we do have that in Dalby 2015 Dictionary of Languages, and even in Künstler 2019 The Sinitic Languages, but generally only when the context makes the scope unambiguous. Ramsey certainly doesn't use it that way. so far dalby is the only author i've found who uses "Chinese languages" without qualification as a synonym for Sinitic, but even there it's in the context of a series of chapters on individual languages and families, and under the label "Chinese", where the reading "languages of China" would be unlikely. — kwami (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::A search for "Chinese languages" [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Chinese+languages%22&udm=36 in Google Books] or [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Chinese+languages%22 in Google Scholar] reveals any number of authors using the phrase as a synonym for Sinitic languages. Perhaps there are one or two using the phrase in the sense you originally claimed, but I have not found them. (Ramsey mentions the phrase once only, on p16 – he prefers the singular.) Kanguole 06:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::i get tons of Google hits for sinitic languages, very few for chinese that aren't presented in a disambiguating context such as 'Chinese languages or dialects.'
• :::::::scholar looks like it might have more hits, but there are few that i can verify. — kwami (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::I'm not sure what the dispute is now. Have you abandoned your original claim that {{xt|"chinese languages" tends to be used to mean the languages of china}}? Certainly we've seen no evidence for it. Are you now claiming that the term is ambiguous? That's different, but also lacks evidence. We see titles like [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10831-007-9017-1 "Contour tones and contrast in Chinese languages"], [https://www.proquest.com/openview/a1874ef1ee0d59631f2eefd430039680/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750 "The microparametric syntax of resultatives in Chinese languages"] and [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204270 "Are tones in the expressive lexicon iconic? Evidence from three Chinese languages"] that are clearly not expected to be ambiguous. Or is it just that "Sinitic languages" is more common? Kanguole 07:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::titles don't often tell us what the scope of the phrase is
• :::::::::The Microparametric Syntax of Resultatives in Chinese Languages does use it with the meaning of sinitic [though that's not actually what the dissertation is about], as does Are tones in the expressive lexicon iconic? Evidence from three Chinese languages, though you couldn't determine that just from the title. i can't tell with Contour tones and contrast in Chinese languages, but the author's comparison of 'chinese languages' to 'african languages' suggests that it refers to the languages of china. i don't know what the relative usage is, but the fact that so many authors find it necessary to clarify what they mean by 'chinese languages' suggests that it's not lexicalized as sinitic.. — kwami (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::You are mistaken about Contour tones and contrast in Chinese languages: the author surveys Cantonese, Lungdu, Taishan, Huojia and Hakka. The fact that these authors (and others) baldly refer to "Chinese languages" in their titles indicates that they expect that everyone will know what they mean by the phrase. No evidence has been produced of an author using the phrase in a way that includes non-Sinitic languages of China (or "non-Chinese languages of China" as it's usually phrased). Kanguole 08:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::To be honest, this is just even further indication that "Chinese languages" is used to refer to the range of languages/varieties within "Chinese language" whenever authors are using precise terminology, as opposed to generalising. Does anyone know of a precedent for how Wikipedia's article titling policy applies when the WP:COMMONNAME—ie. Chinese language, singular, according to some of the !votes here—is arguably a misnomer? Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::if "Chinese languages" has overtaken "Sinitic languages" as the usual term, that's fine by me. i didn't restrict my search to a particular time. a handful of examples doesn't tell us much, and it's not like ngram is gonna clarify anything, but if people who are more familiar with the recent lit think this would be consistent, sure, why not. — kwami (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::I think the key thing is that more literature discusses specifically the Chinese languages, rather than Sinitic languages as a whole, because the vast majority of Sinitic languages (but not all of them) are in the 'Chinese languages' branch of the Sinitic family. See Sinitic languages#cite note-10 and the corresponding reference ([https://referenceworks-brill-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/display/entries/ECLO/COM-00000219.xml full access available] to users of The Wikipedia Library). Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::not necessarily. in many sources Chinese and Sinitic are synonyms. it's not established that bai or anything else is sinitic but not chinese. — kwami (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Keep it singular per WP:COMMONNAME. Absolutiva 22:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:Note: WikiProject Taiwan, WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Hong Kong, WikiProject China, WikiProject East Asia, and WikiProject Macau have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)