Talk:List of varieties of Chinese

Vandalism
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)

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

Dialects in northwestern Shandong (Jinan, etc.) are classified under Ji Lu Mandarin. Dialects in southwestern Shandong (Qufu, etc.) are classified under Zhongyuan Mandarin. Dialects in eastern Shandong (Yantai, etc.) are classified under Jiao Liao Mandarin. -- ran (talk) 06:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Some questions about Min
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. &mdash; Instantnood 08:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

Kuala Lumpur Cantonese?
I don't have any knowledge of "Kuala Lumpur Cantonese", isn't it just Standard Cantonese? Hong Qi Gong 15:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's pretty similar to standard Cantonese, but it has some Malay and Hokkien words mixed in into the vocabulary, and some of the idioms are a bit different. Like when mentioning money, instead of "saam man" for "three dollars", a Malaysian Cantonese speaker may often say "saam kau".--Yuje 21:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering if the difference is really notable enough. There are slight differences in the Cantonese that people in HK and Macau speaks, but the difference is not that notable and more importantly, has not been classifed by linguists to be that much different.  Again, I don't have any knowledge of "Kuala Lumpur Cantonese".  Are there any sources to show that it can stand on its own in that list of the other Yue sub-dialects?  And is it basically the same "type" of Cantonese that is spoken in Singapore, Indonesia, and the general Malacca Straits area?  Hong Qi Gong 04:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, but many Cantonese varieties, such as the Zhuhai, Zhongshan, and even Nanning varieties of Cantonese don't differ too much from Standard Cantonese either, if you've heard (and can distinguish them apart). Unfortunately, there aren't so many English langauge sources on it, though Cantonese teaching materials often mention differences in passing. For example, mentions that two classical Cantonese tones found, 33 and 23, are merged in Malaysian Cantonese., while focusing mainly on differences between Hong Kong Cantonese and Guangzhou Cantonese, also makes note that Malaysian Cantonese is different from both. There does seem to be a book on the subject , but it seems out of print. Chinese-language papers on the subject are more common, but unfortunely, Chinese universities and libraries are out of my reach. I myself only have only a passing familiarity with some of the differences, so a native Malaysian could probably explain it better than I. --Yuje 21:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your unfamiliarity is further supported by the fact that "Kuala Lumpur Cantonese" is never an established term for a purported linguistic branch. Use of this terminology would have violated the WP:OR policy.--Huaiwei 12:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So do you support its removal from the list? Hong Qi Gong 16:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Regional linguistic variations centered on vocabulary diffrentiation are rarely considered a distinct linguistic branch. If so, we can easily add countless "languages", perhaps one for each family as well! ;)--Huaiwei 17:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Regional linguistic variations are considered exactly as what they are: dialects. Now, go and look at the what the title of this page is. And Wikipedia considers localized dialects like Lan-nang, Penang Hokkien, Beijing dialect, Taiwanese Mandarin, American English to be notable enough to merit their have their own articles as well. That aside, I don't care what linguists say, the differences in Singlish are certainly enough to make me consider it completely different language from English!--Yuje 21:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dialects are generally not known as such purely based on vocabulary, which was what I was getting at (rather than linguistic variations, as you failed to show how else different is KL Canto is from Standard Cantonese other than vocabulary). Could you show us that Lan-nang, Penang Hokkien, Beijing dialect, Taiwanese Mandarin, and American English are all dialects with only differences in vocabulary from their language trees? Singlish is not distinctified by vocabulary alone. It has its own set of grammatical rules distinct from Standard English. There are also countless literature out there to support its existance. Could you find us any references in the www to support the existance of "KL Canto" as a dialect? I have to remind that wikipedia is a referenced site, and WP:OR is allowed.--Huaiwei 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, it differs not only in vocabulary, but a bit in phonology, too. As I've said, English-language sources are scarce, but if you know how to read Chinese, here's an abstract from a Chinese source about the Hakka-influenced differences in modern Kuala Lumpur Cantonese. --Yuje 23:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Does this article tell us that "KL Cantonese" is a dialect of its own? I do not see it does at all. Are you able to show us any other source of any language which states that it is a distinct dialect? Compare this to say, Penang Hokkien, and note how the later justifies its existance.--Huaiwei 12:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * After reading this comment, one might ask if you've read the paper at all (or can you read Chinese), and also if you know what the definition of a dialect is.--Yuje 13:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I read the abstract, and I do not like to register just to read an article for free. You are most welcome to download that pdf, and host it somewhere else for me to download from if you are this keen. My definition of a dialect is of zero importance to this conversation. I care only what linguists say, not what I think. Naturally, I do not take into account your "impressions" too unless you are telling me you are a linguist, which I do not declare myself as despite having groundings in linguistic study. So perhaps you may wish to divert your attention to sourcing for verifiable articles and sources instead of pushing this towards a personnal attack.--Huaiwei 13:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned, for English language sources, Siew Yue Killingley, a Ph.D, has written several books and papers on the subject (the broader subject of Malayan Cantonese, actually), including a dictionary and grammar book of Malaysian Cantonese. Her phonology merges two tones that are considered seperate in other varieties, and describes some grammatical differences as well. Among them: 十千instead of 一萬 for 10,000, that 幾 can't be used for numbers higher than a thousand (which is acceptable GZ), and some other exclusive usages. A bibliography of her work is included here: --Yuje 15:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the provision of souces. Was trying to look at the link, but erm...not everyone still pays for access to Jstor after leaving academia! :D Meanwhile, if you have direct access to these souces, could you show us if She actually considers KL Cantonese a dictinct dialect, for books listing regional differences alone dosent quite amount to actually declaring the existance of a distinct linguistic category.--Huaiwei 15:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't necessarily have to suscribe to access JSTOR articles. You might be able to find a public library which has access either to such an account or the actual articles themselves. It might actually be easier for you, since many of her works were published in Malaysia. --Yuje 04:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

One problem I see with this is that it could expand the list substantially. One could say that, for example, Hong Kong Cantonese should be its own entry on the list. It also differs slightly in vocabulary and phonology from Standard Cantonese. Hong Qi Gong 04:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's also true. The differences between HK Cantonese and GZ Cantonese are much more well documented. Despite noting the sound differences between the two varieties, there aren't seperate articles for the two varieties (and Macau). But that's not to say there couldn't be, just like there's a seperate article for the Taiwan version of Mandarin.--Yuje 08:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As above. There may be plenty of references documenting differences in HK Cantonese from that in GZ, but how many of them claim both as distinct dialects? Please be reminded that this is called a List of Chinese dialects, ie, a list of noted dialects classified as such by linguists. Not a list of every variation in existance, no matter how bad or well documented they may be. Can I add the Chinese lingo which may family uses just because there are any notable difference?--Huaiwei 12:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And the Chinese lingo your family uses likely doesn't fit the criteria if it isn't spoken by an actual regular population, and if it isn't actually a variety from a from a certain geographic area (if you family moved to China, so would their lingo). In their case, the correct term would be idiolect (or several closely related idiolects).--Yuje 13:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you show from where did you derive this criteria?--Huaiwei 13:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While not a linguist by profession or degree, I certainly took linguistics education back in university, and I still have my old linguistics textbooks to consult with. And many linguistics dictionaries exist to consult from. --Yuje 15:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ....Exactly what is the extent of your linguistics knowledge, may I ask? GZ and HK are in fact considered seperate (sub-)dialects. Here is a site that gives different phonologies to the two varieties Hong Kong Guangzhou and several others. If you have objections to the use of the word "dialect", then please, what is the correct alternative linguistic term used to describe this level of distinction from another language, which includes vocabulary, phonological, and possible grammar differences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuje (talk • contribs)
 * Again, it is not a matter of how much I know. I simply asked for your sources. So you have a source claiming they are dialects. I was asking how many, in the sense that if this view of them being dialects is universal. It is common knowledge that dialects vs languages is still a grey area when applied to some language families, most notably the Chinese language, so are you now claiming there is widespread concensus in the linguistic world that the definition of a chinese "dialect" is now cast in stone? If so, please show me where. Please show me any verifiable source. And meanwhile, could you show me the credentials of James Campbell?--Huaiwei 13:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You can see Campbell's bibliography of sources here. And I'm still not quite sure what your objection is. No one is arguing that HK and GZ are different languages. Sources say they're different dialects, and their differences are well-documented. If you're disagreeing that they are dialects, then what are they? Are you saying that they're the same? --Yuje 15:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a better thing to do would be to make mention of Kuala Lumpur Cantonese in the Standard Cantonese article. The difference in HK Cantonese from Standard Cantonese is mentioned there - Standard Cantonese. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if that's the best solution, since HK and GZ differ mostly in pronunciation and tones only, while KL also has different vocab and loanwords. If you think you can write in a way that doesn't disrupt the flow of the original article, you're welcome to try. --Yuje 06:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And why not? My primary concern is actually not whether a seperate page should be created for each regional variant, but of whether they should be listed in this article, which is called a List of Chinese dialects. Having them here implies they are a Chinese dialect, which they may not be. Having extensive documentation on regional pages either in the Cantonese article, or in sub-articles, would not conjure up the same misconception.--Huaiwei 15:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Yuje, HK Cantonese does have different loan words and vocab from Standard Cantonese. For example, "motorcycle" is 摩托 in Standard Cantonese, a transliteration of "motor".  But it is 電單車 in HK Cantonese.  --- Hong Qi Gong 15:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This phenomena is actually very widespread particularly with languages spanning across multiple societies. Consider 巴杀, a common term for Market in Malaysia and Singapore, and originating from the Malay "pasar malam". Again, do these variants count towards a seperate language or dialect?--Huaiwei 16:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm finding this discussion fascinating, as a second language speaker of Hong Kong Cantonese. You might find the discussion of dialect vs. language in the dialect article useful. As you've said, no-one would argue that HK and GZ are different languages. Waitak 15:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So if no one would argue they are distinct, should they appear in this article?--Huaiwei 15:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My point isn't that they're not distinct, just that they're not different languages. They may well be different dialects. That's a separate question, though. --Waitak 15:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If Cantonese is a language, then Yuet Hoi (Yuèhái; Standard Cantonese), Seiyap (Sìyī), etc., are dialects. Hong Kong Cantonese, Guangzhou Cantonese, Macao Cantonese, etc., are subsets of Yuet Hoi. For characteristics of Macao Cantonese in particular, the post on a forum and the book review linked from talk:Standard Cantonese may be interesting. &mdash; Instantnood 20:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we come to a concensus on whether or not Kuala Lumpur Cantonese gets to stay? Maybe put it to a vote? --- Hong Qi Gong 20:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont think a vote is neccesary given the small number of would-be voters here, and since wikipedia isnt a democracy. All it takes is for people who wish to allow KL Canto to stay in this page to provide the neccesary links to reputable publications declaring it as a "Chinese dialect in its own right". This is accordance with wikipedia policy, and not about me being picky or dificult.--Huaiwei 22:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If Cantonese, Mandarin, Wu, etc., are dialects, then those listed are already not dialects. &mdash; Instantnood 15:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to comprehend the above sentence.--Huaiwei 16:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dialects themselves can have dialects of their own. They're sometimes called subdialects (which can themselves have their own divisions), but there's really no difference in meaning between dialect and subdialect. --Yuje 04:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any problem to have Kuala Lumpur Cantonese included, given that we are already listing Guangzhou, Hong Kong and Macao (there are subtle but noticeable differences among them) under Standard Cantonese, as well as Taiwanese and Cantonese Mandarin. &mdash; Instantnood 20:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Order
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. &mdash; Instantnood 20:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Use common names. --Yuje 04:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, Mandarin will have to be renamed as the Chinese language.--Huaiwei 05:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Only if you're able to effectively argue that Mandarin isn't a common name. --Yuje 05:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Nice to hear you mentioning concensus, when you altered the list ordering without that very concensus in the first place. And I cited the 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)
 * So if you have an issue with the lack of concensus, why do you then impose your own ordering sequence, also without concensus? 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; Instantnood 18:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; Instantnood 15:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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. &mdash; Instantnood 18:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * That's fine if you are clear about that. Not everyone is as familiar with the matter as you do. &mdash; Instantnood 15:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

Cantonese dialects
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)

Name change
The renaming really ought to have been discussed first on the talk page. Personally, I found the new name really cumbersome. Perhaps something like List of Chinese languages and dialects might have been less wordy, and still accomplished what you were trying to do? But having said that (and as a person who's pretty picky about the words "language" and "dialect") I would have been just as happy to leave it as List of Chinese languages. --Waitak 03:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should have been discussed. There is far too much political correctness here. There is no issue of "languages" or "dialects". The border is so blurry that it is non existing. It does not matter. Just take a pick - one or the other, and give this article a succinct header. Mlewan 05:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I was just trying to be techinical.......-_-
 * 100110100 08:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

While this page lists all the major divisions of the Chinese language, which linguists prefer to define as individual languages, it also lists the many dialects within these divisions. Beijing hua and Tianjin hua are dialects, not languages. Naming this "List of languages of the Chinese language family" would not reflect the content of the page. Such generalized lists are provided at Spoken Chinese and Chinese language. --Jiang 08:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I could of used List of languages and dialects of the Chinese langauge family, & infact, I did think of doing so. But I remeber lists were not so inclusive, like List of Germanic languages, or somthing, were I've seen something happen, like so.
 * 100110100 09:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I went to check it out, its List of West Germanic languages, & yes they use that title, while also listing dialects. I withdraw renaming it to List of languages in the Chinese language family, but propose renaming it to List of Chinese languages
 * 100110100 09:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I also found their organization to be easier on the eyes than the current organization. I'm going 2 reorganize it that way.
 * 100110100 09:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is a big issue here. Some of you view dialects politcally, & yet, this hasn't been mentioned in the article. And now I'm sitting duck with the fact that 2 dialects are intelliable. My edits were very good cause they helped clairfy the issue here & Jiang rved my edits!!!! 100110100 10:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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

*Renaming
The discussion is clearly closed.100110100 10:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Guangzhou, HK, and Macao dialects???
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)
 * Yes and no. There are in fact academic research on their differences, c.f. . &mdash; Instantnood 21:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Suggestions
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Simplified To Traditional
I would advise that the names be rewritten in traditional.100110100 00:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Why not have both traditional and simplified? (tyger 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC))
 * 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)
 * 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))

Reversion
I reverted some edits by User:Huaiwei that:


 * Re-introduced a number of errors in the leadin in that had been fixed
 * Changed the order to fit his POV

I've attempted to ask User:Huaiwei to discuss these changes here - once in the edit comments, and once on his talk page. I'm about to revert the article again, since there has been no attempt by User:Huaiwei to engage in discussion. Hope this all works out better than it looks like it will. :-( Waitak 11:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If there were any "errors", I would like to see them listed here for further discussion. As it is, I fail to see any.
 * As I said on your talk page, I was refering to the internal links. I'm a little puzzled that you seem not to know what I was talking about since it was plainly stated there.
 * And as I have also clearly indicated on my talk page, the removal of incorrect internal links can hardly be called a reversion of "painstaking edits", so your continued reference to them as "errors" obviously left me wondering just what "error" you are refering to. I am quite unaccustomed to this unusual application of the word "error", so I would certainly appreciate your enlightenment on this.--Huaiwei 15:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My original reordering of this list was to have all of them listed using one romanisation system, such that Mandarin is no longer leading this list. There is then an attempt to change the order of some specific dialect groups by replacing them with English names, at the expense of other dialects which do not have a common English name. So I would certainly like to know just which order actually bothered to gain concensus, and if any of these ordering dosent reflect the POV of any individual.
 * I suppose that that's my point. The order on the page is alphabetical. You choose to see represent "Yue (Cantonese)" with "Cantonese (Yue)" as POV, and your own preference as inherently NPOV. I don't see that as reasonable. If you think that somebody's contribution isn't NPOV, discuss it.
 * For the record, I was the one who introduced an alphabetical listing. I chose to see both the use of the words "Mandarin", "Cantonese", and "Hakka" as POV in a list where other dialects are indicated in their pinyin form, so perhaps you may wish to tone down a little on this strange "siege mentality" affliting so many folks with a certain trait. Maybe some level of self-confidence would help this website a little. And as for this call for "discussions", I do hope you arent blind to the discussions which already took place above with no consensus reached. You edited something in that section, so quit feigning ignorance on its existance.--Huaiwei 15:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have in fact responded in full in User talk:Huaiwei, so your claim that I made "no attempt...to engage in discussion" is misleading, if not a plain act of dishonesty. I am deeply disturbed by this basic lack of integrity.--Huaiwei 13:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to be baited into a slugfest here. You responded at 11:43, while I was in the middle of composing the response above, which I finished at 11:47. I did not see any response before what I typed above. I apologize for the appearance of any impropriety, but your accusations of dishonesty and lack of integrity have no basis. Could we keep this discussion to the topic, please, rather than stooping to ad hominem attacks? Waitak 13:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not appreciate being the subject of false, hurtful, accusations, so perhaps you may wish to review your conduct before thinking you are at a moral high ground to keep others in check. My opinion on your lack of integrity is being confirmed repeatedly when you 1. continue to insist there was "no discussion" when it has been in existance all along . 2. You claim your above accusation was writtern 4 minutes after my first response. In actual fact, I made my first comprehensive response in my talk page at 11:00 hours, a full 47 minutes before the above accusation. Whats more, you made a second inquiry at 35 minutes after my first reply , and I responded a second time 8 minutes later , 4 minutes before your offensive email. Granted, you may have failed to see my second reply, if we may take your word for it, but I find it difficult to believe that you failed to see my first reply. 3. You insist on calling some edits "errors", despite me explaining to you what those edits actually are. I even invited you to restore the internal links if you wish, which you did not, and that I had to do them myself. With this kind of consistently dubious behavior in a matter of minutes, do you think I have much room in forming a better opinion of you? I suppose time will tell. Meanwhile, I too prefer a discussion which keeps to the point, but not when personal attacks are being directed at me.--Huaiwei 15:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The only "false, hurtful accusation" was that I believed you had not engaged in discussion, and said so. I was wrong and have apologized. You're right that you had responded on your talk page, and that there were responses at 11:00 and 11:43. I didn't see them, because I was looking for a response either here (as I'd asked you to do), or on my talk page, which is common practice on Wikipedia. It's not as one-sided as you portray it, but I nonetheless apologize - again - for the appearance of impropriety. None was intended.


 * I've not accused you of anything else. I have chosen not to accuse you of anything, because I don't believe in attacking people. You, on the other hand, have accused me of being dishonest and lacking personal integrity, and, by pointed implication, all manner of other things. I have not attacked you personally, and will not do so. You have attacked me personally and continue to do so. Please stop. Waitak 03:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is English-language Wikipedia. Use the most names most commonly used in English. If the most commonly used name in English is from Pinyin, use the Pinyin name. If the most commonly used name in English is not from Pinyin, use the most commonly used name. Don't revert other materials unrelated to what you disagree (e.g. restoring errors like the missing hash ). That's simple vandalism. &mdash; Instantnood 21:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting changes
Just wanted to note here why I'm about to revert the formatting changes that Julian Cervantes contributed a bit ago. I appreciate the hard work, but, at least to my eye, it makes it a lot harder to see what's in what category, since the only distinction between third and fourth level headings is the size of the font, which is a lot harder to spot than the horizontal line that goes with second level headings. Waitak 03:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What do people think of having the list as a table vs. the way it was before? I personally lean toward the way it used to be, because:
 * The headers help navigate, particularly with the horizontal lines
 * The comments are inline, and easier to read
 * On the other hand, it's nice to have the Chinese versions of the names line up. Not a very strong opinion, in any case. Anybody else have any thoughts? Waitak 15:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Cancerese
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)

Heshan Dialect Classification
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)

Do not understand the recent edit
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)

Danjia dialect is a form of Standard Cantonese. It is closer to Guangzhou accent then Shunde accent.

Karolus 20080408 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.190.32.7 (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Longdu Dialect
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)
 * 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)

Classification of Zhongshan dialects
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)

Sequence, subset and classification
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)

Map
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)