Talk:Sinitic languages

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The origin and spread of the Sino-Tibetan language family.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Chinese languages" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chinese languages and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 5#Chinese languages until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NasssaNser - T 14:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent removal of Min and Waxiang from infobox

@TheLeopard: I am quite confused by your recent removal of Min and Waxiang from the infobox. Their addition to the infobox as top-level branches of Sinitic wasn't to suggest the Greater Bai languages are Chinese, but rather because it's theorized that Min and Waxiang (especially Min) split from Old Chinese rather than Middle Chinese like other Chinese languages. And the theory that the Greater Bai languages may have been an early split from Old Chinese is the reason for their inclusion as a possible top-level branch of Sinitic. It'd be ludicrous to use one set of criteria for the Greater Bai languages but then throw that set of criteria out for the Min and Waxiang languages because they're commonly said to be Chinese dialects/languages. And of course, I don't mean to suggest that the Min languages aren't Chinese either, they certainly are in a sociolinguistic sense (and Sinitic being named Sinitic specifically is a rather superficial detail that doesn't change the phylogenetic relationships between the languages in question), but that's beside the point. The point is if the Greater Bai languages are considered a potential top-level branch of Sinitic because they may have split from Old Chinese, then the Min and Waxiang languages have to be included as a top-level branch based on the same criteria as Min is widely accepted to have split from Old Chinese rather than Middle Chinese like other varieties of Chinese, and Waxiang is sometimes theorized to have similarly split from Old Chinese. And if they aren't included despite that criterion, then it wouldn't make sense to include Greater Bai. ~Strawberry of Arctic Circle System (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree, i think the previous layout was sufficiently clear Remsense聊 17:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Remsense: I appreciate your response, I wasn't sure if wrote my point clearly or not. ~Strawberry of Arctic Circle System (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chinese language which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)