Template talk:Han Chinese subgroups

Removed red links/links that link to non-ethnic articles
I changed the template to include only groups that have their own sourced articles to show why they're an ethnic group. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, stop adding the red/non-ethnic links. If you can find sources for them and create articles for them, great. But otherwise, keep them off this template. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit changes
I hope BloodMerchant or someone would reverse the edit made by Balthazarduju. The Template is unorganized and messy right now, before there would be categories but now categories like Wu-speaking peoples mash with linguistic groups together (shanghainese people). I'd say the new format is perfect and with further fix on dialect grouping pages, it would be organized and easily understandable. Undo plZ or make an consensus~ --Lennlin (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC) How does it create an impression based on rankings? The old template was too ambiguous and confusing as to tell which regional groups are closely related by language. I fear that I could rouse an edit war. All I made was make things simpler. Bloodmerchant (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Balthazarduju, this is what he said: "Undid the massive change to the template in spite of good intention. This new format isn't suitable, as it creates impression that the subgroups are based on rankings and number of categories in them"

I stated I don't think the format you created is suitable, as it creates the impression that the template is ranked, and is based on how many available articles there are on Wikipedia for these linguistic subgroups. One of the main problems is your categorized format suggest that some have more subgroups in them (Min, Wu) when in fact it is just there are available Wikipedia articles on these subgroups. Furthur, the Mandarin category has only Kwongsai and Chuanqing? So that is all the Mandarin speakers are? As with Gan and Xiang, each only has one link? Yue has Cantonese and Tanka, but I'm sure if you break them down like on Wu speakers, you can probably create an article for various specific regions in the Cantonese area and result in many, many subgroup articles.--Balthazarduju (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That is why I also seriously think you guys probably shouldn't create so many Han subgroups articles unless there is real notability on them or very thorough research and sources. Many of the articles has very little notability, and it seems like just random articles created for the sake of it. Based on the way how some of these articles are created (i.e. Ningbo, Wuyue, Wenzhou, Putian, etc.), you can probably create literally thousands of Han subgroups articles.--Balthazarduju (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No you're missing the point. The point of the new format is to organize them into categories and it does not rank others lower. You mention Mandarin, Well there haven't been anyone who made a page about mandarin and the categories shows it. If you use the old format which is a messed up way of putting all these scramble articles together then it would likely to be a mess. Min Has a lot because there are actually Min Chinese who wants to focus on their part. This is the English Wiki, It takes time for Native Mandarins to notice the missing part in the categories, since most Oversea Chinese are from South which are the main bases for different dialects. I don't know, Someone can offer their opinion on this matter. On Hanfu, Ps The photo is mine although the people is not me, so I took it off and might put it in List of HCC if there is a artical that needs it, second mind if you check Hanbok and Kimono page and them as well, if you can't.....isn't it kinda hypocritical?? --Lennlin (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at templates based on Chinese dialects. There are at least over 9,000 Chinese dialects of the many Sinitic languages in use, and it'd be a pain to list them all on here. If someone wants to make an article on their own people, let them make it. I don't see what your point is, but the old template is pretty unreasonable. And most articles start out kinda sloppy and disorganized, as time comes, and more contribute, they become full-fledged articles. Are people not allowed to make articles? If a Beijinger realizes that there are no articles of his own people, he can make one himself.. Even Chinese wikipedia doesn't list all the regional subgroups of China, and it's up to people to make them. If I would make an article on any subgroup, such as Beijingers, Shanxinese or Sichuanese, I can. But that doesn't mean all of them have to be grouped together in one incoherent format. There are even articles out there are orphaned, that they have no templates for easy access. Bloodmerchant (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the article should have notability. Not because if there is a regional dialect then you should make a whole article about a subgroup; in that case, you'll have thousands of Han subgroups articles in a very short time, which is simply excessive. Most of these subgroup articles contain very little information, except lists (i.e. famous people). And I'm saying you shouldn't create articles like Beijing people, Taishan people, Tianjin people...... etc. If the template's format was based on your categorized version, then people might create more of these articles carelessly, simply by following the regions and dialects, break them down through cities, counties and townships.--Balthazarduju (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If you've already created the articles, that's fine, I'm not proposing deletion, but before you create another subgroups article, consider if there is actual notability on them.--Balthazarduju (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, this is Wikipedia not some restricted documentary websites. Every have the rights to contribute under the good intentions. Why can't there be a Beijing People if their Dialect of Mandarin is different from other region. Of course if someone made an useless article, people will propose to delete it. These article haven't been fully expanded. I think BloodMerchant will not continue making more of these. Wenzhou and Shanghai should be created as they are both largely different like Hokchow to Teochow. People should only allow to create region that have significant differences like in Min which have alot of difference because they are all spread out and thus large differences. Some of the articles, which we are know like fuzhou or putian are roughly empty but everyone can fill it in later. OR I MIGHT BE WRONG  --Lennlin (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the articles right now are messy and the proposal is crazy but idk......seriously we need more people opinion on this so it's better to keep it frozen? --Lennlin (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the above proposal is crazy and rambling. You should have great research and credible sources to create a legitimate article.  If you just create these articles for the sake of it, it ought to head to speedy deletion.--Balthazarduju (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That proposal above, I should say, is pretty insane, I've never even heard of some of those groups before. But people do make up new articles (often article stubs with no credible sources) all the damn time. And I do suggest creating articles with viable sources and research, especially when I put more weight on academic research papers than other sources. (And there is a fair amount of research done on Han subgroups- especially concerning genetics and culture) For the time being, this format would be left alone in its original format (for the sake of neutrality). --Bloodmerchant (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea, however the previous format by far is the best format. For Example,

New Format: or

Old Format:

I ask which one would be organize? and which one is simpler? It doesn't create any impression base on ranking. I will reverse back tommorow or soon if no one oppose, if someone still object to the new format. We can discuss here.--Lennlin (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The new format, in my opinion, is the best format. The old format just groups in diverse Han subgroups without any regard. there should be a slightly better way of implementing a new format. My new format was based more on common linguistic heritage. Bloodmerchant (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Jin peoples
What about Jin peoples?--Kaiyr (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)