Talk:Chinese language

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2024

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2025 Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction

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)

Chinese is not a language

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)

head

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 20 June 2025

Chinese language → Chinese languagesChinese 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)

• 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.
  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:

  Chinese language may refer to:

  • Chinese languages, a group of related language varieties within the Sinitic languages
    • Varieties of Chinese
    • List of varieties of Chinese
  • Standard Chinese, a modern standard form of Mandarin Chinese that is the official language of China
    • 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

  (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 Pageviews Analysis (and 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 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)

  (edit conflict) 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 unambiguous primary topic.

  Re the argument that the article title should be what 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)

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: 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 Ngrams. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Keep it singular per WP:COMMONNAME. Absolutiva 22:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)