Talk:Waxiang Chinese

Languages Mid‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

China

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Classification[edit]

Does "unclassified language" really fit? That category mostly contains languages that are thought to be not affiliated with any existing family --JWB (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The classification as Macro-Bai is sourced to a couple of blog entries, so I've removed it from the infobox, and question whether it should remain in the article. Baxter and Sagart (2014:34) say the language is "definitely part of Chinese". Kanguole 09:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edits were probably not appropriate, then. If you change that here, you should make analogous edits to Sinitic languages, where Waxiang is currently listed as possibly Baiic. — kwami (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waxiang is Sinitic, but there seems to be a Macro-Bai substratum going on (I've had discussions with Roger Blench about this). Some Chinese sources (don't remember the references / citations) have claimed that Waxiang may be mixed with Miao, but I personally don't see any of that going on. — Stevey7788 (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to have a published source, but it sounds like you're not arguing that it's part of Macro-Bai. (The terminology is confusing, as the Wikipedia article Sinitic languages is about the old proposal of a Sino-Bai node, while most authors these days use Sinitic as a synonym for Chinese as a language family.) Kanguole 11:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]