Talk:Varieties of Chinese

Style

Kanguole, I'm not clear on what awkward punctuation is being introduced with the use of the {{zhp}} template: semicolons? If anything, it seemed that it was removing awkward punctuation, or otherwise was leaving the presentation essentially identical. I suppose I'm worried because if the template is too awkward for use in inline text, then it's not really good for anything, because its entire purpose is to be used inline. Remsense聊 11:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think the semicolons are a problem. (I was mistaken in mentioning {{zhi}}, which wasn't used here.) The {{lang-zh}} template was originally intended for use in parentheses in the opening sentence of articles, where the semicolons are customary. Later the |labels=no option was added with the intention to use the template elsewhere, where semicolons are less usual, so it's not a good fit.

In prose, the most one needs is simplified, traditional (if different), pinyin and gloss, with the order depending on the focus of the context. The convention simplified/traditional makes the alternatives clear, the gloss is marked with single quotes, and then the semicolon (which is never seen in writing on the subject) is unnecessary. Kanguole 12:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, when I submitted changes to the underlying module that enabled this functionality I wanted to change as little as possible, and semicolons were the pre-extant delimiters used, as you know. I originally thought a presentation that looked like

汉字／漢字; hànzì; 'Chinese characters'

using a fullwidth slash between character forms looked good, but I got some pushback on that so I decided to stay inbounds as much as possible. I could go back to the module and try to hammer out some more nicer-looking tweaks, but I want to make sure I'm not stepping on anyone's toes when doing so, since it's not mine and I want to make sure everyone else on wiki who's using it can continue to do so as before. Do you think an option to disable to disable the delimiters would be worthwhile?Remsense聊 12:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Why a fullwidth slash? It's logically at a level above the simplified and traditional characters.

I think that adding |labels=no to {{lang-zh}} in order to use it in prose was a mistaken approach, and I'm not sure how widely it was used. For one thing not having labels breaks down if you have more than those four, and even then the simplified/traditional alternation is unclear. And then there are the semicolons, which have a quite different meaning in prose. Kanguole 12:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a tricky style issue, especially one that is ideally fit for almost any article that requires some inline Chinese text. The slash in part is because it makes tabular presentation of characters nicer since they line up due to all the glyphs being the same size. Remsense聊 12:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead comment regarding UN official status

Chinese (specifically, Mandarin)<!--DO NOT CHANGE TO STANDARD CHINESE The best English language word that can encompass all the forms of Chinese mentioned in the quotation is "Mandarin Chinese". Beifang Fangyan and Northern Chinese are not really covered under 'Standard Chinese', so it would be inappropriate to write this as 'Standard Chinese' which is a more limited concept.--> is one of the [[Official languages of the United Nations|six official languages]] of the [[United Nations]].
I think this might be wrong: the UN doesn't operate with other Mandarin varieties, right? It works in Standard Chinese. Remsense留 22:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The UN is a bit vague about what they mean by "Chinese", but in practice it is pretty clearly Standard Chinese. The editor who added that is blocked, so I'll undo it. Kanguole 23:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Not mentioning Ba-Shu

@Kanguole What is the purpose of removing Ba-Shu Chinese from the list of subdivisions? It's not relevant whether it's mentioned in historical surveys, because (a) we know it existed, (b) we know it was the variety spoken in Sichuan for a long period, and (c) it is not part of any other variety that is mentioned, so this seems like very strange reasoning to me. It's also doing no harm by being there, so I really don't see how omitting it is helpful in any way, especially when you are fine with mentioning minor varieties like She Chinese. Theknightwho (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant whether it's mentioned in surveys, because we follow sources. She Chinese, in contrast, is mentioned in multiple surveys, and treated in some detail in several sources. It's also mentioned in the body of the article, which the infobox is supposed to summarize. Kanguole 20:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kanguole It's sourced on the page Ba-Shu Chinese, so unless you are disputing that it existed then your point is completely irrelevant. You are also ignoring that several other varieties you've chosen to keep are not mentioned at all, which is inconsistent, so I cannot agree with you removing it. I have now restored it, given you have failed to address any of my points. Theknightwho (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you acquainted with WP:BRD?

Any number of forms of Chinese have disappeared over the centuries. Some of them (unlike Ba-Shu) are mentioned in surveys. But they are not mentioned in this article, whose contents cover contemporary dialects. It's true that some others in the infobox aren't mentioned in the article, and should also be removed. Kanguole 22:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I am; you reverted the inclusion of Ba-Shu three times.

Firstly, it's not clear why "surveys" (a term you have not elaborated on) should be definitive here; as you yourself have agreed, Wikipedia cares about reliable sources, which do indeed support the existence of Ba-Shu Chinese as a separate branch. Secondly, the non-inclusion of other (non-specific) varieties of Chinese is not relevant, because the question is whether they are separate branches that can be sourced. Thirdly, the obvious solution to not being mentioned in the body is to mention them in the body, not to pretend they don't exist. Theknightwho (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The point of BRD is that when your change is reverted you discuss, rather than trying to force it in.

The purpose of an infobox is to summarize key information from the article; in this it differs from a list article or a category. This article is a survey of varieties of Chinese. Its coverage should follow similar surveys in the literature, such as the Language Atlas of China, the Linguistic Atlas of Chinese Dialects, Norman's Chinese, Yan's Chinese Dialectology, etc.

As I mentioned above, any number of forms of Chinese have disappeared over the centuries. They are outside the scope of this article, which covers contemporary varieties. If one were to write an article on historic varieties, it would similarly need to be grounded in the general literature on the subject to determine due weight among all those past varieties. In particular, the claim in the Ba-Shu Chinese article that this is a primary branch of Chinese is obtained by interpolating from one of the dozens of areas mentioned in Fangyan and the rhyming practice of Song-dynasty poets. It needs support from secondary sources, which is lacking. Kanguole 08:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Kanguole here, that we should stick to one RS list in the infobox. Remsense诉 09:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)