Talk:Yue Chinese/Archive 11

RfC: reverted move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

closed. move article to Yue Chinese per reasons below. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin, Angr, moved the article to Yue Chinese after reviewing months of debate. RegentsPark just reverted on procedural grounds, saying not enough time was given for comment. The argument that "not enough time" has been allowed for discussion has been made for five months now. We'd all gotten to the point of repeating ourselves, and nothing new was being said. A new move request is not likely to do anything but rehash the archived debate. At stake is whether we move according to the MOS ("X Chinese" for primary branches of Chinese), our sources (the ISO code is "yue", Ethnologue calls it "Yue Chinese", etc), conflict with the name of Cantonese (which consensus decided was the primary meaning of the name "Cantonese" in English) and logical problems with the name "Cantonese (Yue)" (Cantonese is also Yue, and there is no non-Yue Cantonese, so that is not a viable dab), or whether we allow a walled garden to be set up by editors who say that Cantonese speakers should determine what their language is called in English, and object to their language being treated the same as Wu, Mandarin, or Hokkien. kwami (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Previously proposed names: Cantonese (Chinese) • Cantonese (Yue) • Cantonese (Yue Chinese) • Cantonese Chinese • Cantonese Chinese (Yue) • Cantonese dialects • Greater Cantonese • Yue (Cantonese) • Yue (Cantonese Chinese) • Yue Cantonese (Chinese) • Yue Chinese • Yue Chinese (Cantonese) • Yue Chinese–Cantonese
• Rejected: Cantonese (taken), Cantonese language (per MOS), Cantonese dialect (per MOS), Cantonese (linguistics) (per WP Linguistics)

Although I suppose this is "nothing new...being said", I want to ask for consideration of the status quo ante (or one of them) of Cantonese (linguistics) (or another parenthetical) for the macro article and standard Cantonese for the micro article. The articles resided at these locations for several years. Both of the articles are about Cantonese and all Cantonese is Yue so neither the current situation nor the propose solution make sense. An argument was made that standard Cantonese doesn't meet the (OR) criteria for a standard language but it seems that all but the fourth apply to standard Cantonese (the same, incidentally, as English).

If this is not desirable, I would posit that, for no particular reason, Yue Chinese is marginally better than Cantonese (Yue) for this article. — AjaxSmack 15:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that no-one has been able to come up with a satisfactory parenthetical. WikiProject Linguistics wants the tag "(linguistics)" used for linguistic topics, not as a fudge for articles we don't know what else to do with. Otherwise we'd have "German (linguistics)", "Italian (linguistics)", etc - in fact, things actually started going that way. There were dozens of such articles that I cleaned up. Also, assuming that it were a linguistics topic, so is Cantonese -- that is, there's no reason for that parenthetical to go on this article rather than that one. "(language)" is objectionable to many Chinese who consider the language to be Chinese as a whole, not it's mutually unintelligible parts. "dialect" is even worse (no distinction, and incorrect by the lay conception of "language"). "(Yue)" is incorrect, as once again Cantonese is also Yue, but worse, it does not disambiguate from some "non-Yue Cantonese". I suggested "Yue (Cantonese)" as a more accurate name - that is, the Yue that is also called Cantonese as opposed to "Yue (ancient)" - but there was little enthusiasm for that name, and it never went anywhere. Can you think of anything that is both accurate and differentiates iso3=yue from Cantonese? kwami (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Standard Cantonese is it's not standardised like e.g. Standard Mandarin. I would say that it meets none of the criteria under Standard_language#Features fully. Mostly Cantonese standardisation is of the sort done by academics and publishers, trying to pin down the language, to e.g. teach it or sell books. But that happens to all languages, is not a single standard and so does not mean the language is a standard language. But we've covered this before, in the merge discussion for Standard Cantonese and Canton Dialect, the former into the latter before it was renamed Cantonese.

As that's been resolved, if not to everyone's satisfaction then at least with broad consensus, this article needs a better name that does not confuse it with Cantonese. The current name does that as it looks like the primary subject of this article is Cantonese, or a "Yue" variant of it. It's even less clear than that as brackets are usually used for recognisable classes: "(book)", "(film)" etc.. I suspect lots of people reading this article's title will simply ignore the bracket and assume this article is on Cantonese, overlooking Cantonese completely.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Mostly Cantonese standardisation is of the sort done by academics and publishers, trying to pin down the language, to e.g. teach it or sell books." - Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hong Kong universities and the government have a very defined "standard" for Cantonese, does it not? After all, it is the de facto official language of the territory. Colipon+(Talk) 17:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It is the language spoken by most Hong Kong residents, but that does not mean there's a single standard: it varies between speakers, such as between those brought up in Hong Kong and those not, and has also changed rapidly in recent times as Hong Kong has modernised and become more international. As for academia, what standard? But, again, we've discussed all this before, and agreed to merge Standard Cantonese and Canton dialect because there was little evidence of a language standard, as defined at e.g. standard language.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Cantonese has as much of a single standard as English. Read Wikipedia's own criteria for a standard language. Both English and Cantonese meet all but #4 to some degree. — AjaxSmack 20:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It has a standard dictionary? A standard grammar? A standard pronunciation? Three of the books I have here are books published by the HK govt. on Cantonese - Sidney Lau's course - and they identify no such standard: rather they describe variations in pronunciation and usage that learners should be aware of, identifying none as the "correct" or "proper" way speak Cantonese. Similarly there's no "standard" Cantonese promoted by the courts, schools or media. But again, this is something that was resolved months ago: it's not a standard language in the sense Mandarin, Arabic and French are.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Does Blackburne actually have any working knowledge of Mandarin, Arabic and French? If not then he cannot say that Cantonese is not a standard language in the sense of the languages he gave as examples. 86.180.53.230 (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is supposed to be an RfC for outside comment for procedural reasons, not a debate among old hands here. Responses to newbies like Ajax are fine, but we shouldn't start rehashing old arguments with each other.

Ajax, there was a separate consensus on the name of Cantonese, and it's been stable under that name, so that's off the table for the current discussion. (Indeed, "Cantonese (Yue)" was a temporary name so that a consensus could emerge for "Cantonese".) If anyone wants to consider that name for this article, we first need to close a request for move on that page, but meanwhile we still need to decide on a name for this article. kwami (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Cantonese is just wrong, indicated by the variability of all Cantonese articles, "Cantonese" should be a dab page. It should not be a page for any particular page. And the last RM on it was also very flawed, since it only considered linguistic grounds, which is badly biased against anything else. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I haven't read much of your month-long discussion, but here's what I have to say.

First, it seems that you need help defining what a standard language is. I'll give you material from my linguistics textbook (ISBN 9781413030556). First, so that you may see the situation with English, "No single variety of English can be called the standard. After, all, there are different national standards - for British, American, Australian, and Cambodian English, among others. Furthermore, at least with respect to pronunciation there may be several standard varieties of a national variety. The simple fact is that many varieties of standard English exist."

And about standard varieties, "What then is meant by a standard variety? We could identify as the standard the variety used by a group of people in their public discourse - newspapers, radio broadcasts, political speeches, college and university lectures, and so on. In other words, we could identify as standard the variety used for certain activities or in certain situations. Alternatively, we could identify as standard the variety that has undergone a process of standardization, during which it is organized for description in grammars and dictionaries and encoded in such reference works."

Also, "An important point to note about any standard or standardized variety is that it does not differ in linguistic character from other varieties. It isn't more logical or more grammatical. Nor is there any sense in which it could be said to be linguistically better."

Also about standardization, "Typically, varieties that become standardized are the local dialects spoken in the centers of commerce and government. In those centers a need arises for a variety that will serve more than local needs, such as in distributing technical and medical information, propagating laws, and producing newspapers and books. The centers are also where dictionary makers and publishers are likely to be located. Samuel Johnson lived in London while he wrote his dictionary, Noah Webster in New England. Had circumstances been different, the varieties represented in their dictionaries might well represent the dialects of other groups. Dictionaries serve first to describe and then to enshrine a variety of the language that can be used for public discourse across social groups, regions, even countries."

Notice that the existing material on Wikipedia about standard varieties has no source. I think it is safer to use my textbook's description. From this, I find the Guangzhou dialect to be a standard variety.

You might also want to know about distinguishing among dialect, register, and accent. "The term dialect refers to the language variety characteristic of a particular regional or social group. Partly through his or her dialect we recognize a person's regional, ethnic, social, and gender affiliation. Thus the term dialect has to do with language users, with groups of speakers. In addition, as we saw in the preceding chapter [chapter 10, about language variation across situations of use], all dialects vary according to the situation in which they are used, creating what in the previous chapter we call registers: language varieties characteristic of situations of use. In this chapter [chapter 11, about language variation among social groups] we deal with dialects - language varieties characteristic of particular social groups. Languages, dialects, and registers are all language varieties. What this means is that there is no linguistic distinction between a language and a dialect[my bold]. Every dialect is a language, and every language is realized in its dialects. From a linguistic point of view, what is called a language and what is called a dialect are indistinguishable." About accent, "Dialect refers to a language variety in its totality - including vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, pragmatics, and any other aspect of its linguistic system. The terms language and variety also refer to an entire linguistic system. By contrast, the word accent refers to pronunciation only. When we discuss a 'Southern accent' or a 'Boston accent,' we mean the pronunciation characteristic of a Southern dialect or the Boston dialect."

From this, that some want Yue Chinese to be a separate language and some want it to be a dialect of one Chinese language doesn't really matter, because there is no linguistic difference. But you need to call Cantonese something and the Guangzhou dialect something, so here is my suggestion: Be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Relatively similar varieties are usually called "<Region demonym> <Common language name>" or "<Region> dialect." For example "Western American English," "New York dialect," "Jilu Mandarin," "Sichuan Mandarin," "Beijing dialect," "Mexican Spanish." However, standard varieties as defined by my textbook are usually called "Standard <Common language name>." For example, "Standard English," "Standard Spanish," "Standard German," "Standard Tibetan." Therefore, the Guangzhou dialect should be called "Standard Cantonese." Relatively different varieties are usually called "<Common name> language." For example "English language," "Spanish language," "Italian language," "Mongolian language." However, relatively different varieties of Han languages are usually called "<Region> Chinese." Therefore, you need to decide whether to be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia (entailing changing the naming style of the other articles about relatively different varieties to "<Common name> language") or to be consistent with only the articles about relatively different varieties of Han languages. Therefore, Cantonese should be called "Cantonese language," while changing the names of the other articles about relatively different varieties of Han languages, or "Yue Chinese."

—Asoer (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cantonese is not going to be called "Cantonese language". See the previous discussions here, the article at Varieties of Chinese and especially WP:NC-ZH#Language/dialect NPOV - essentially you have to be aware of the history of spoken Chinese, and how Western rules can't be simply applied because of it. Apart from that I'm not sure what you think this article should be called ?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The term Cantonese refered to in this article and in ISO, etc is simply Guangzhouhua. So the best name for it is Guangzhouhua. 86.180.53.230 (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If having one language is that culturally important, how about "Yue Chinese"?Asoer (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Grammatically, that only means the Yue variety of Chinese. Like "American English". It's agnostic as to whether that's a dialect or a separate language, and so avoids the point of contention. kwami (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I find that a nice compromise. I would call them all "varieties," but I recognize that "Cantonese variety" and "Anything variety" are stupid ambiguous names that common readers would never search for, so after that I'd prefer that you just be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, but Chinese commoners would say "But we all speak the same language." So then to avoid the language/dialect thing, at least until there is a relevant change in Chinese culture, "Yue Chinese" is a good option. Also, note that "Mandarin Chinese" is the odd one out when it comes to naming relatively different varieties of Han languages, which I suspect is because there is no common name for the Mandarin-speaking region (whatever that is). If you think "Cantonese Chinese" would be more common than "Yue Chinese," use it. I'm sure all of you have gone over Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Deciding an article title so...I have nothing else to say, although I can look for stuff in my textbook if you want. Asoer (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all knowledgeable about the subject at hand, but based on the material in the talk pages I've read, "Yue Chinese" sounds like the least-bad, and maybe the best, option.--Atemperman (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And it's ethnologue name/code is ISO 639-3:yue , Yue Chinese. And it also follows the conventions for naming varieties of Chinese. IMO Yue Chinese is the best option (alternative: Cantonese Chinese). --LLTimes (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

LL, this really is supposed to be a request for outside comment. It sounds like Atemperman has read those comments, and I don't want this to degenerate into another argument among the rest of us as it started to above, with debate as to how important Ethnologue is etc. — kwami (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'm just one of the very confused people here, but I seem to recall that, eighteen months ago, before Kwami got into his moving spree, the content of 'Standard Cantonese' reflected Guangzhou dialect. As to "Cantonese is not going to be called 'Cantonese language", you're not the one to decide that - consensus does. Cantonese is clearly a language system, like Mandarin. Had it not been for one vote, all people in the PRC would be speaking Cantonese today. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So what are the palatable suggested names for the article so far? Can we just get a quick listing without the long-winded arguments for each? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea is to see whether anyone has anything new to suggest, or new arguments for the existing proposals. "Palatable" is prejudgemental--I doubt we would agree, for example. I suppose we could list everything that anyone has suggested, but I'm don't think that would be useful without the arguments, because then our visitors wouldn't know which arguments are new. Perhaps it's best just to let them look through the archives. — kwami (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "palatable" was rhetorically misleading. What I meant was suggested names that have not been rejected by wide majority or concensus. I would like to see a list without the arguments because I do not think any visitors would bother to look through the archives. I myself have not had the time to keep up with the numerous exchanges that have taken place in the discussion. It's simply not realistic to expect people to be familiar with, or familarise themselves with, all the arguments that have been presented. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Depending on what you mean by "wide", I'd say the only ones which haven't been rejected are the two under question. Some others have had a few negative remarks and been otherwise ignored, which I would think counts as a consensus of a lack of enthusiasm. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm with User:HongQiGong on this one. Without a quick list, it falls into too long; didn't read (which explains why there's lack of enthusiasm) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, listed the ones I could find in the last couple of archives above. I excluded Cantonese (taken), X language & X dialect (per MOS), and the (linguistics) tag (per WP linguistics). I added one of my own, "Greater Cantonese". (No, it's not used in the lit AFAIK, just a thought.) — kwami (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest Cantonese (Yue Chinese) as "Cantonese" is the WP:COMMONNAME (but is debatably not the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE), so use the technical name as the disambiguator. OR Cantonese (dialect group) since it is a group of dialects, which avoids the situation of whether it is a language or not. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Cantonese (Yue Chinese) is near identical to the current name, with only the addition of "Chinese", but that's unnecessary as "Cantonese" makes that clear. But on your other points: Cantonese is the primary usage. You say it's debatable and it was, but we've had the debate, and no-one is looking to re-open that debate now. It's because of the outcome of that debate that we're here trying to find a name for this article that doesn't conflict with Cantonese. Unfortunately both the names you suggest have the same problem as the current name: they will be confused with Cantonese by many readers.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not debatable that it is the common name, and per policy, WP:COMMONNAME it should sit at "Cantonese" except when it is not WP:PRIMARYUSAGE of the term "Cantonese". It is arguably not primary usage of the term "Cantonese", but it is still the common name of the concept documented on this page, so WP:PRECISION says you should use "Cantonese" + a parenthetical disambiguator. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• No more moves - This discussion started some time ago on the false premise that it must be moved, so everybody started proposing new names, and got into the wrong discussion about who favoured what in a 1st 2nd 3rd choice race. We are here, today, for better or worse. The name isn't a particularly good one, and while I would prefer it going back to the old consensus name (before musical namespaces began), it's pretty obvious it ain't gonna happen. To stop this interminable circular discussion and the total chaos and confusion to the reader, I say no more moves. Leave this article where it is. If that isn't clear enough, I vote that this article should be named Cantonese (Yue). Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And it shall be so for ever and ever? Wikipedia cannot improve if such philosophies are adopted. Knowledge and consensus changes.Asoer (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That is supposed to be a part of the RfC. But Kwami split it off into its own section.[1] I am reverting that. The RfC concerns article naming/moving. The suggestion to not move it is part of that RfC discussion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Closing summary

Main arguments from various discussions

1. Cantonese is a subset of Yue therefore the current title is misleading.
2. Consistency with other Chinese varieties
3. We need a naming convention system of Chinese languages before resolving this issue.
4. Wikipedia:NC-ZH#Language.2Fdialect_NPOV suggests using xx Chinese when disambiguation is necessary
5. Consistency is not important. (Unfortunately, we can't use Yue language per above)
6. Yue Chinese is a wikipedia construct (and we should not be creating our own constructs)
7. Yue Chinese is a 'nice compromise' between the need for standardization across wikipedia and the need to not label varieties of Chinese 'languages' (3 outside opinions)
8. Yue Chinese is the term used by ethnologue
9. One outside suggestion that we use Cantonese (Yue Chinese) as the title because Cantonese is the commonname. I ignored this one because it suggested an alternative and the discussion is confusing enough as it is.
10. The article should not be moved because it doesn't need to be.

Arguments for status quo

The main arguments I can see for the status quo are that the premise that the article needs to be moved is faulty, that there is no particular need for consistency, that 'Yue Chinese is a wikipedia construct, and that we need a naming convention system for Chinese languages before we resolve this issue. Of these arguments, I discounted 10 and 3 immediately. Clearly, the naming box is open and can't be shut, and the absence of a system does not preclude our examining the issue in isolation.

I agree that there is no particular need for consistency in the sense that we shouldn't choose an incorrect name merely for the sake of consistency. For this to hold water, we'll need to weigh the reasonableness of the current title with the reasonableness of the alternative title.

The argument that 'Yue Chinese' is more concerning. Generally, we need to avoid creating constructs of our own. So, the question is 'to what extent is Yue Chinese a wikipedia construct. While this is not easy to answer, it does seem that it is not wholly a wikipedia construct because it is used by ethnologue. Therefore, I decided that this is a plausible, but weak argument for not moving to Yue Chinese.

Arguments for Yue Chinese

The main arguments for Yue Chinese are that the current title is misleading, Yue Chinese fits in with the guideline in Wikipedia:NC-ZH#Language.2Fdialect_NPOV, is consistent with the naming used for other chinese varieties, it is used by ethnologue, and that it is a compromise between the need for standardization and the need for treading carefully w.r.t. what is culturally acceptable.

Evaluation

First, let me say that, based on what I've read in the archives and here, I didn't see strong specific reasons for Cantonese (Yue). Most arguments were along the lines of lets keep the status quo or that the entire process (starting with the original renaming) was flawed. While these are valid arguments, they don't leave the reader with much faith that the current title is an appropriate title. Add to that the argument that the title may be misleading (a lay reader would be forced to wonder, as I was, what the difference is between Cantonese (Yue) and Cantonese) and the case for staying at the current title is weak. Conversely, while there does seem to be some doubt about the appropriateness of Yue Chinese as a title, it is at least consistent with other Chinese languages, is also recognized by at least one outside authority (ethnologue), and was the more acceptable choice of the outside opinions expressed in the discussion. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that this article is better situated at Yue Chinese than at Cantonese (Yue). --RegentsPark (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article name instability

Hey awesome. This is the second time that my concern has been deleted from this Talk page. Let me rephrase then - I would like to request that nobody moves this article without a proper move request. Unilateral moves have caused naming instability in this article. Every few months when discussion dies down, an editor comes and moves the article, causing a long and drawn-out discussion to flare up, only to have the article move again eventually. Then a few months later when discussion dies down again, the same thing happens. PLEASE I beg of you, do not move the article anymore! Build concensus, file a move request, then let a neutral admin make a decision. It's simple. We're all experienced editors here, we know this. This is not directed to anybody in particular, but directed to everybody who is involved in the discussion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the RfC is pretty much a move request. My suggestion is that we let the RfC run for a few more days its one month term, and see what it throws up and then go with the consensus. That way, everyone can move on to other (greater!) things. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be let run its full length (one month). 70.29.208.247 (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yue or Yueyu (Yue-Yu)?

The title of the article is about a language or possibly languages. In the box of the article, in Chinese characters is Yue-Yu. Folks in the discussion have been arguing about what is Yue. Now folks, Yue and Yue-Yu are in Chinese 2 different things. Yue-Yu (literal translation Yue-speech), in Chinese, refers specifically to a language called Guangzhouhua, ie Guangzhou-speak. Yue-Yu is never used as a substitute for Taishanhua, Hakka or any other tongues.

Folks, the Chinese word Yue is a noun and it is a word for the geographic region commonly known as Guangdong Province. Yue (on its own) is never used to mean a language of the Yue region. A sentence in Chinese such as "I speak Yue" does not make sense in Chinese. "Yue" can also be used as an adjective such as "Yue-cai" to mean "Guangdong cuisine".

Now folks, it may be that some linguists have hijacked the Chinese word "Yue" (a geographic term) to mean what they believe are a group of related languages, of which Yue-Yu is the principle. However in doing so they have assumed that folks like you understand the difference between their use of "Yue" and Yue-yu itself.

So folks, when you have an article called Cantonese (Yue), the editors should be clear in their heads what they are refering to. Cantonese in English refers to the single language Guangzhouhua, or Yue-Yu, whereas some folks here want Yue to mean a family of languages. So by itself the title Cantonese (Yue) is self-contradictory. 86.180.53.230 (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Cantonese" itself has been shown (see the talk archives) to also mean the family of dialects. As used in English. And "Cantonese" by itself is an adjective for Canton... and Canton can mean the province or the city, both meanings prominent, neither primary for the purposes of identifying a place in China. (I suppose it is similar to New York... which even has local cuisine) 70.29.208.247 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. In fact I was the one who pointed out the English word "Canton" is used to mean both "Guangdong" and "Guangzhou". In the case of "Guangzhou", in the English it is sometimes refered to as "Canton City". However, historically, the language "Cantonese" used by Europeans to trade was "Guangzhouhua", therefore originally "Cantonese" referred to "Guangzhouhua" and not the multitude of languages found in Canton Province (Guangdong). This continued with the Portuguese rule of Macau and the British rule of Hong Kong in which the local official spoken language used for Chinese was/is Guangzhouhua. This is important because the original local Hong Kong dialects were not Guangzhouhua, but were colloquially known as "peasant speeches", and the European/ British term "Cantonese" did not refer to these local "peasant speeches".

There is confusion in this article at this moment because the English title contained the word "Yue", whereas the Chinese characters are "Yue-Yu". One would reasonably assume that the meaning in English and Chinese should be identical in the same article. "Yue" and "Yue-Yu" refer to different things, as I wish to point out. 86.180.53.230 (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

But since we're using English, we go by English usage. In English, "Yue" means iso3=yue, Cantonese in the broad sense. Whether it matches Chinese Yue or Yueyu is irrelevant. By this logic, you could argue that in Chinese, 美洲 should be a synonym of 美國, because in English both meanings are "America". English usage should not be pushed on Chinese any more than Chinese usage should be pushed on English; there's no more reason to assume that "Yue" in English means exactly the same thing as Yue in Chinese, just because it's a loan word, any more than 美國 in Chinese should mean exactly the same thing as "America" in English, just because it's a loan word. — kwami (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

But what makes you think that the "yue" in iso3=yue is not an English contraction for Yue-Yu (ie Guangzhouhua)? Also as you give the example that America in English can mean the American continent and the USA, whereas in Chinese the two meanings are distinct, only serves to remind us that when translating between languages it is important that meanings and syntax are clarified. This may not be important in everyday use or even in the discussion pages of Wiki, but is certainly very important in negotiating international treaties. It is also important to realise that people who can partake in such work must be totally fluent in both languages, as well as their cultures and customs, something which most of the editors in these discussion pages cannot even come close to approaching. 86.180.53.230 (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Just so we're clear

Just so we're clear, there's no concensus on whether or not the article should be moved, correct? I want to avoid any editor suddenly moving the article without filing a move request because discussion has died down and he thinks concensus was established when it wasn't. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 12:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. The purpose of the RfC is to examine alternative titles for this article. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The move request was already filed, and decided on. The reversal was not a repudiation of that, but only to allow additional time for external input. Pending external input that would change the conclusion of the previous discussion, the decision stands. — kwami (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Which basically means you'll be moving the page again when discussion dies down, right? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think most of us are agreed that previous move requests were procedurally improper. Please bury that 'there is consensus to move, although there is a vocal minority against' malarkey. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the history of the moves, I think that this is the place and time for determining consensus. I suggest that everyone make their case for the title(s) they think appropriate on the RfC and then I'll ask for an uninvolved admin to come and close the RfC and move or not move the title. It is reasonable to include arguments from past discussions, including the argument that due weight be given to the conclusions of other involved editors who closed discussions but, other than that, I consider this to be an open discussion. I suggest that arguments be expressed cogently and precisely because references to past discussions are unlikely to make sense to anyone who has not been watching this page. Finally, the RfC itself is a move request of sorts and, once it has been closed by an uninvolved admin, I don't see the need for any further move requests. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I am glad to hear that abuses of process should now be a thing of the past! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Regents, you said that the existing arguments had been evaluated, the consensus was to move, and that there was no need for us to rehash them. All you were asking for was time for external input on procedural grounds. Angr is also one of only two uninvolved admins in WP:Language, and the only one who responded to my request. He is still an uninvolved admin. Can we count on your initial decision to see if anything new is brought up in this discussion, or ask Angr to evaluate that, rather than asking everyone to come back to present their case for the fifth or six time? — kwami (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That is partially correct. The main reason for the procedural revert was that the initial move request was closed too early. Contentious move requests often go well beyond the allocated seven days and this request was clearly contentious. However, once the move has been reverted, and an RfC opened, it is best to allow all arguments to be reconsidered, It is fine to say that a particular title is based on an argument presented before, but there is no guarantee that an uninvolved admin will be in a position to delve that deep into the matter, or even make sense of years of discussion in the short time in which he or she has to make a decision. As a practical matter, it makes sense to encapsulate all the arguments in the current RfC, especially if you don't want your arguments discounted. I'm open to the suggestion that Angr close the RfC provided that is acceptable to all parties. I consider myself uninvolved and may close the discussion myself unless there are objections from any of the parties, in which case I suggest a note on WP:AN asking an uninvolved admin to take a look at the discussion and reach a conclusion. In the meantime, remember that there is no deadline.--RegentsPark (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I am perfectly comfortable with the article staying at its current name. Contrary to what Kwami believes, the silence or lack of discussion implies concensus for the status quo, not concensus for change. And the status quo here is quite simply, the current name. However, having said that, I should state that there are definitely other names that have been suggested which I would not oppose. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There was also silence apart from less than a handful of editors when it was at 'Yue Chinese' too. By your argument that was therefore also the consensus. Angr, as an uninvolved admin familiar with the nature of these arguments, reviewed the situation and found for that name. Not as his personal choice, but as the result of the debates we've had. Regents has reverted for procedural reasons, to allow time for addition outside input, given the chance that such input might change the direction of the debate. That's all. — kwami (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Turning those arguments on their head, one could even more pertinently argue that a small group of editors has been pushing for needless and frequent change of this article's (and related articles') name, sowing chaos and confusion against the established consensus. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 20:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are about half a dozen on each side. I'd say that's two small groups of editors. And you have an odd understanding of "consensus". Meanwhile, no-one seems particularly confused, except by why we have two 'Cantonese' articles, which they keep mixing up. — kwami (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, I don't know how it is that it has escaped your notice, or maybe you just don't care, but everytime you personally move the article after a period of silence, a huge argument flares up and the article ends up moving again. Please just stop acting bullish with the article moves. That move request that stayed up for one single day was pure crap. There's supposed to be a period of discussion after a move request is filed for controversial moves, and that discussion did not take place. But lest we forget, that move request was filed only after you moved unilaterally and editors jumped in to protest. Maybe it's time to accept that we cannot come to an agreement to another name for the article. If this imaginary concensus to move away from the current name actually exists in reality, there would be a whole lot more editors in here pushing for the move right now. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And I don't know how it's happened that you've failed to notice what's happened. I haven't moved the article after periods of silence; I've moved the article after complaints that the name is inappropriate. — kwami (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think leaving the article name as Cantonese Yue is acceptable to me as the frequent name changes in the past few months has created more anxiety and possibly be introducing new original research. I would prefer Cantonese and Standard Cantonese (for the Hong Kong variant). But this title Cantonese Yue is close enough (more relevant identifier) and certainly alot better than Yue Chinese which sounds weird and borders on original research.Visik (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Yue Chinese" is certainly not OR, as it's straight from Ethnologue. "Cantonese Yue" would also fit Standard Cantonese just as well as this topic, so it doesn't disambiguate the two. — kwami (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. Everytime you've moved it, you've waited a few months to a few weeks after discussion has died down. Of course there are complaints about the name. We can't come to an agreement on the name. What we really have is "no concensus". There are complaints about you moving the article, too, I don't see you acquiescing to that and stop moving it. Look, just stop moving the article and let uninvolved admins do the moving. It's not that difficult. Every experienced editor understands this concept. Whether or not they choose to abide by it is a different matter. If you want to move it again, file a move request, let a proper course of discussion take place after the move request is filed, and then allow an uninvolved admin come in and make a decision. It's very simple. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I suggest that everyone make their arguments regarding titles in the RfC above (The article should be at Cantonese (Yue) because .... and "the article should be at Yue Chinese because ...."). I'm sure kwami has no intention of unilaterally moving this article so most of the above discussion is moot. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think he has every intention of moving it unilaterally again. Just read what he's stated in this discussion section. He believes the decision from the one-day-discussion move request stands and will move the article in due time regardless of what comes out of the current discussion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the number of times he has moved this article over the past two years.

• Cantonese (Yue)
• Yue Chinese
• Cantonese (linguistics)
• Cantonese
• Standard Cantonese

The fact of the matter is, Kwami's involvement in this article is every bit a part of the discussion on the article name. As long as he keeps moving the article, the discussion will never be settled and the article name will be unstable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

First, I don't think kwami wants to unilaterally move the article. Second, if he did, and you think so, it doesn't matter. If you want to try and prevent such things from happening, follow Wikipedia:Blocking policy or Wikipedia:Banning policy. Also, as long as the article is ready to be moved, it doesn't matter who does it. Asoer (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is - the article has never been ready to be moved for all the times Kwami has moved it. That is why whenever he moved it, a huge discussion flared up and it got moved back or moved to yet another name. And no, just because I want him to stop moving the article, does not mean I want him blocked or banned. There is a huge gap between the former and the latter. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Three things:

*Firstly, that assertion really beggars belief: the proof is there for all to see. Yes: as long as the article is ready to be moved, it doesn't matter who does it. However, I maintain that previous moves were done in an highly opaque and underhand fashion – the article(s) have never been ready to be moved. Each time the discussion subsides because there is genuinely no consensus for any move, despite Kwami's repeated claims. Even he admits there are about five or six people on either side in this interminable discussion. He's obviously as frustrated as we are by the impasse, and has decided to force the discussion by moving the articles thinking that the discussion on his side is exhausted. He might have thought at the start - about 18 months ago - that others will drop the opposition once the move is made, but he cannot seriously think that now!

*Secondly, much has our collective patience has been tried. Please don't throw that rule book around - we are not talking about blocking. It's as HongQiGong says - we're just trying to find a solution here. I would add that most of us are just totally fed up with and confused by these moves. There is absolutely nothing -except for Kwamis claim that this move was meant to be temporary - which says this article has to be renamed. It cannot and must not be moved unless a clear consensus can be convincingly demonstrated. Although I am tired of this fight, I'm not giving up yet.

*Thirdly, it is a serious matter of admin abuse - using powers that a non-admin does not have. As all the namespaces are being recycled, there's no question of a non-admin moving them unless it's to another one of those with a 'Yue' suffix. Trust me - I tried some time ago moving this article (and the other two) back to their pre-Kwami namespace.

Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 22:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A little history here. The moves are ultimately due to WP:linguistics rejecting the use of the (linguistics) tag for topics that are not linguistics. I moved all of the growing number of language articles that had that tag. All settled down quickly except for this one and Cantonese, which were unusually contentious.

Angr reviewed and found the consensus was for 'Yue Chinese'. (Consensus is not decided by a vote, but by the quality of the arguments.) Regents put that on hold for additional (outside) comment. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You keep making the assertion that there was concensus, but if there were true, editors would not have been up in arms when you moved it there the first time unilaterally, or when Angr moved it after a one-day move request. And what makes you think there is even concensus now? Editors have made arguments against Yue Chinese, if you still insist on moving it there, that smacks of bias for your own preferred name. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is not a matter of pillar or policy, and it's well known that there is no reason to follow what goes on for other articles. You failed to obtain consensus for the moves, full stop, end of story. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, since when have you come up with a quality argument? You have no knowledge of this subject matter, so how can you come up with quality argument about it? I have no knowledge of native African languages, so how could I offer quality arguments about native African languages? 86.177.120.93 (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

IPA template

There is now a Cantonese IPA template at {{IPA-yue}}. It's only a redirect to the generic template for the time being, but if we start using it for Cantonese transcriptions, then when the template is eventually created, the articles will be pre-linked. — kwami (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC has ended

Ok, RfC has ended. I personally do not see where we currently have concensus to move the article. Even if Kwami believes there was concensus to move, which I disagree, I do not see how we currently have concensus. Let me do state that I am not against "Yue Chinese" as the title. At best, I do not think the article should be moved. But I would like to ask anyone who wants to move the article to please at the very least file a move request. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The pertinent question is, Has anything new been said? Have any new arguments been brought to bear since Angr made his decision upon reviewing the previous discussion? The reversal was, after all, purely on procedural grounds, to allow outside comment, with no new move request required. We've now had a month of outside comment, and I don't see anything that would change the discussion. — kwami (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the above purple section is the RFC? Seriously I got to ask how much participation rate do we need in this discussion to keep it at Cantonese (Yue). Because there really is no real "Yue Chinese" term no matter how you spin it. If we are to settle for something, it has to be something realistic and used in real life. I am looking at the consensus purple section above, it does not look like people are interested in a move at all. Benjwong (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone give a good reason why Yue Chinese is a good title name when 9 out of 10 people call it Cantonese? It seems such a simple question, I cannot even get a straight answer. Benjwong (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cantonese is taken. As I remember, you wanted that title for this article, and wanted to call that one something like "Standard Cantonese", but lost out on that consensus. (I think I moved this article to "Cantonese" a couple years ago, but that didn't go over well either.) The current title is (a) used by Ethnologue, (b) corresponds to the ISO, (c) conforms with our naming conventions. That makes it an acceptable title. Not perfect, but at least not factually wrong the way the previous one was. If you can think of a better title that would make everyone happy, please don't hold out on us. I haven't seen or been able to think of anything better. — kwami (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the way this is being handled. Is it possible that 90% of the people (in the real world) who call it Cantonese are all wrong? I think we debated this. Should it move to a new name, it really needs to include the Cantonese name to some degree. There is like 10 real world words that actively use the character (粵). No where in the language WP:rules does it say ISO codes and page uniformity overrides real world situations. I'll debate the rest of it tomorrow. Benjwong (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources ? My sources (primarily half a dozen books I have here, though I can easily find many more e.g. online) say "Cantonese" is what's described at Cantonese, i.e. the particular variety of Hong Kong and Guangzhou. That is the common usage in the real world among English speakers. This article is about the wider group of languages or dialects, which does not have a common name as it's not commonly discussed but does have a well attested academic name, "Yue". This is about English usage, so the occurrence of 粵 not as important - it would only be so if we had no English sources for the name.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Ben, that 90% of English speakers would use the word 'Cantonese' for this, if they used any word at all. The problem is that they would not distinguish it from Cantonese. So we need to consider the wording used by people who distinguish the two, not the 90% who don't. Similarly, 90% of people speak of the "weight" of an object in kg, not distinguishing 'weight' from 'mass'. Since we're an encyclopedia and strive for precision, and since we distinguish weight from mass, we can't go around saying that someone "weighs" 60kg. And having an article titled "weight (mass)" would be just plain wrong, even if 90% of people don't know the difference. An encyclopedia is, after all, where people come because they don't know the difference! — kwami (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite honestly, that logic completely ignores WP:COMMONNAME. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 12:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Examples abound of when practical usage trumps what "those in the know" prescribe. Just take a look on any sports bio - you might be surprised to find reference to the subject's 'weight' and not 'mass', although the latter is the more correct name in physics terms. My friend Greg will no doubt be happy to argue with you until the cows come home why we should steer clear of the 'more correct' kibibyte (which incidentally has been adopted as the formal terminology by standard-setting bodies) and stick with the more common kilobyte - he had to battle for a whole year to reverse the idiocy which saw it being adopted across Wikipedia. Common sense takes precedence, as it rightly should. Looks like there are at least three dead bodies you will need to leap over to get this article moved again. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Is not that 90% of English speakers would use the word Cantonese. The problem is 0% of English speakers would use the word Yue. (粵劇) is called Cantonese opera, not Yue opera. Mostly Yue just doesn't get used in English. We left it at "Cantonese (Yue)" as best of both worlds name. Until we have a better name yue is actually not more academic. Benjwong (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Against policy

In the middle of a debate, the entire conversation is moved to Archive11 by kwami. This is an all time low for the discussion. Time to move the page back to what it was. Benjwong (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(smacks forehead) The section was called "RfC has ended". I archived it along with the rest of "Archive 11 (Page moved after RfC)", where it belongs. If that's the all-time low for the discussion, we must've had a remarkably high-level discussion. — kwami (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen someone archive a conversation from one day ago. The archive had a different agenda obviously. Benjwong (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course you've seen it. After the last move request was closed, I archived that, and I don't recall any objections. — kwami (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The previous RfC was not exactly approved. It was closed out because that conversation was at least going nowhere. Benjwong (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Yue Chinese → Cantonese (Yue) — - The admins who made the move are promoting their name interest with no consensus. This is the 3rd time multiple regular users are against the move and are held down by people with administrative privileges. The issue is not only forced, but the debate was purposely discontinued when things don't go the admin's way. See Archive11. Benjwong (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The two admins that moved the page, Angr and RegentsPark, were uninvolved in the debate, so how are they "promoting their name interest"? And of course the debate was discontinued: it was clearly advertised that it would last a month, and Regents closed it soon after the month was up. There was no active discussion when he did so. — kwami (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I happen to believe this is not about the subject anymore. I believe you (and the other admins) will push this move regardless. When I mentioned earlier that Yue is not used directly in English at all, and the archive was done, it appears the intention is to close the debate asap. Benjwong (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've got your facts wrong, as has been demonstrated to you more than once. — kwami (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

For any newbies coming in, this is a case of keep-filing-motions-until-you-get-your-way. (Though I'm sure Ben would say the same of me.) There was a two-year debate; since I've been heavily involved and Ben among others wanted an uninvolved admin to make any move, I asked the only two uninvolved admins at Wikiproject languages, and Angr responded. Angr reviewed the debate and came down on the side of the current name (Yue Chinese), and moved the page. A few editors, including Ben, filed for a reversal. RegentsPark then came in (I don't know from where) and reverted Angr's move on procedural grounds, as he thought there should have been an RfC for external points of view. I then opened the RfC he wanted. (Angr wanted nothing more to do with the issue at this point.) After the month was up, RegentsPark apparently didn't see anything that would challenge the conclusion that Angr came to, or perhaps came to the same conclusion himself, so he restored the move. Now Ben is claiming that two uninvolved admins are oppressing ordinary editors, and somehow have a vested interest in this name. (BTW, Angr and Regents have both said they would prefer a name different from either of these.)

IMO this is a push for a walled garden. A couple of the editors opposed to the current name have gone so far as to say that no non-Cantonese should be allowed to decide on this matter. — kwami (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN makes it clear that anyone can edit. The problem is that a regular user has to debate weeks and days to promote a move. You as an admin can snap a finger and move it in your sleep. Even if you are going by the references, how many have said Cantonese as an English name does not belong at all? None. Benjwong (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything you just said is completely true. I fail to see how any of it has anything to do with the issue at hand, which is to revert a page move that was decided by two uninvolved admins, using the processes that you yourself requested. — kwami (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying these other admins were not helping you? I am looking at the page edit history. Between you, Angr, RegentsPark, JohnBlackburne. You guys edited two parts in the entire article but claim to have sources for everything. The two parts are "Total speaker" and the name of this article. If I go into any article and pushing for controversial moves, I better be editing a lot more than 2 sentences. That is something to consider. Benjwong (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

John did not move the page, so he's irrelevant. You'll have to ask Angr if he was "helping" me or not (though presumably you'd want some evidence of a conspiracy before you start accusing people), but AFAIK he did not edit anything of the article and he had never chimed in on one of the debates, so your allegations against him would appear to be baseless. Regents came here after you guys protested Angr's move; he had also had nothing to do with the article, and I had never heard of him before. He's done nothing to make you think badly of him except disagree with you. Is that reason to doubt someone's motives, that they have a different opinion than yours?

I've spent some time improving the article; a fair amount of it is my contribution, actually, so I've done more than just argue about the name. At least you've also done good work to improve it. The others contesting the current name have contributed almost nothing so, by your argument, we should disregard their opinions. You would then be the sole "legitimate" voice opposed to the name Yue. But of course that's a specious argument: Anyone can correct problematic statements in an article they have not edited. And of course you guys were demanding that we get someone who was not involved in the article to decide whether to move it! So your logic is: (a) only an uninvolved admin can decide to move a page; (b) decisions on naming cannot be made by people not involved in writing the article. So, how is your proposal to move it back to 'Cantonese (Yue)' going to work? No-one here can move it, because we've all taken sides in the debate, but no-one else can move it either, because they haven't edited "a lot more than 2 sentences". — kwami (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(od) For the record, I frequently check the requested moves page and close moves and that's how I came upon this one. I reverted the previous move because a controversial move should be allowed to run for seven days - longer if the discussion goes on - and the closing admin did not do that. I asked for an RfC, there was one, I examined the discussion during the RfC and went back and looked at various past discussions, and my conclusions are clearly expressed above. At this point, I'd say that filing further move requests could be considered disruptive and, if you believe that my close was mistaken, you should seek other avenues for resolving this dispute.--RegentsPark (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• "I've spent some time improving the article; a fair amount of it is my contribution, actually, so I've done more than just argue about the name. At least you've also done good work to improve it. The others contesting the current name have contributed almost nothing so, by your argument, we should disregard their opinions." The statement smacks of ownership, if ever I've seen a better manifestation of that. Kwami can't just agree to disagree and leave the namespace alone, but instead moved it multiple times because he and a small band of merry followers think it should be that way. It just makes me mad as hell because it clearly shows what obstinacy we're up against. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 18:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read what you quoted? It was Ben who argued for ownership; I pointed out that per his argument, you would not have a voice. You do have a voice, of course; arguing against Ben does not mean that I agree with him! — kwami (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose based only on the merits of the current proposal and not previous debate (WP:TLDR). The proposed title, Cantonese (Yue), contains a parenthetical that doesn't disambiguate — all Cantonese is Yue. The current title is far from ideal (it is also ambiguous and I support something with "Cantonese" in it), but it least it matches occasional English usage. — AjaxSmack 16:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, same reason as AjaxSmack. I have said this several times when these proposals have come up: I will never support a title with a weird parenthetical (this includes Cantonese (Yue), Yue (Cantonese), and Cantonese (linguistics)). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• oppose if we're counting votes I should add mine again. My reason is the proposer has given no arguments for a name change, i.e. given no reasons why "Cantonese (Yue)" is better. The arguments for the current name are very good - it removes confusion with Cantonese, is consistent with other branches of Chinese, and "Yue" is the best name we have for the branch. It's not a common English word but there's none suitable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose After starting a vote back few months ago, I've been reading comments here now and then and I'm still agreeing with statements above, as well as, RegentsPark's reasons for moving back to the current title. --LLTimes (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support While I believe that stability is necessary, I'm putting my dead body towards being counted, for all the foregoing reasons I have stated since Kwami's shenanigans started 18 months ago. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Both con this disruptive failure to abide by the RfM, and pro the most sensible name that's been put forward. — kwami (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support ditto reasons from Colipon. got to be counted. The name should reflect the common name WP:COMMON rather than academic or linguistic point of view. Hopefully this is the last change ever. No more rocking the boat on this article, steady ship will attract more readers Visik (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Have you read WP:COMMONNAME? It's not an unconditional ticket to whatever name you happen to prefer. It specifically says, "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the arguably more common, but less accurate Tidal wave." The accuracy of description is part of the issue some users have against "Cantonese", which is the whole reason this discussion is being had. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag, I've read WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not even suggesting any name change as in your statement. I'm voting whatever choice was presented in this requested move which is a move back to Cantonese (Yue). I can understand the reasoning behind your example and which section you picked on. But if you look under

• Support Yue is still a part of the name under Cantonese (Yue). You are not missing anything. Also for those who want to ignore WP:COMMONNAME. Is not whether Cantonese is more common or not, it is. But whether Yue is used at all. Hardly. Benjwong (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But it's simply wrong. I could understand you wanting to move this to a sensible name. But "Cantonese (Yue)" is factually incorrect: It is not Yue Cantonese as opposed to some other non-Yue Cantonese! ("Yue (Cantonese)" would at least not have it backward.) "Cantonese (Yue)" also does not disambiguate anything, since both lects are called Cantonese and both are Yue. — kwami (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If both can be called Cantonese, both can be called Yue. Then what is the reasoning to choose Yue to be the name of the larger branch? Unless this can be answered, there is no right or wrong. Benjwong (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on. You know the answer to this.

There are various cities around the world called "Canton". Suppose we decided to go with COMMONNAME and call Guangzhou "Canton" as well. Would we move it to "China (Canton)", or "Canton (China)"? The latter, of course. Why? Because "China" refers to the country, and "Canton" the city. In our case, "Yue" refers to the language, and "Cantonese" to the dialect. Although the name of the dialect is commonly used for the language (rather like referring to China as "Beijing" in political contexts), the name of the language is not normally used for the dialect.

As for Yue "hardly" being used, it is actually quite common when a distinction is being made. If it's not terribly common, that's because people don't normally bother with the distinction. But here on WP we do: we have two separate articles, just as we do for Wu Chinese vs. Shanghainese. So it's entirely appropriate for us to follow the literature and distinguish Yue Chinese from Cantonese:

• Comparative Kadai: the Tai branch (1997) Jerold A. Edmondson, David B. Solnit

"The Interaction between Zhuang and the Yue (Cantonese) Dialects"

• The Chinese mosaic: the peoples and provinces of China" (1985) Leo J. Moser

"Cantonese and other Yue peoples"

• The Languages of China (1989) S. Robert Ramsey

"Yue (Cantonese): The Yue dialects are popularly known as the Cantonese dialects."

• Modern Cantonese phonology (1997) Robert S. Bauer, Paul K. Benedict

"Origin of the Yue dialects: ... some of the colloquial words in Yue form an ancient Tai substratum"

• Compendium of the World's Languages (2000) George L. Campbell

"YUE (Cantonese): The Yue linguistic complex, centred in Guangdong and Guangxi, is by far the most important of the non-Mandarin Chinese dialects"

• Studies in Yue Dialects 1: Phonology of Cantonese‎ (1972) Oi-kan Yue Hashimoto

"The Yue dialects are sometimes referred to as the Cantonese dialects. [...] In order to avoid unnecessary confusion, we shall use "Yue" to designate the dialect group and "Cantonese" to designate the norm of that group [the dialect of Canton]"

• The phonology of Guangzhou Cantonese‎ (2005) Ming Chao Gui

"The Yue dialect family, that Cantonese belongs to"

• Cantonese‎ (1993) Siew-Yue Killingley

"it is more usual and also clearer to use the term Yue [for the regionalect and Cantonese for the dialect]"

• West meets East: Americans adopt Chinese children (1999) Richard C. Tessler, Gail Gamache, Liming Liu

"There are four major regional dialects spoken in China: Beifang, Wuyue, Min, and Yue (Cantonese is one type of Yue) [...] A person who speaks only Cantonese can barely understand a person speaking Tashan."

• Facts about China‎ (2003) Xiao-bin Ji, Eric Dalle

"Compared to northern and central dialects, the Yue dialects have relatively simple initial systems. For example, Cantonese has only ..."

"The term Cantonese should be reserved for the dialect of Guangzhou (Canton)"

• The Everything Speaking Mandarin Chinese Book (2006) John-Francis Grasso

"Yue: ... The most notable Yue dialect is that of Guangzhou, ... and is known generally in English as Cantonese."

— kwami (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It could have been Yue Cantonese as the main branch name. Followed by Cantonese (Guangzhou), Cantonese (HK) etc. That could have been end of discussion. Benjwong (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If that name had ever been in the running ...

But actually, it is also incorrect: "Yue Cantonese" would mean the Cantonese that is also Yue, which is not what we mean, because we are not contrasting it with Hakka Cantonese and Minnan Cantonese. — kwami (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. You can't keep requesting moves till you get your way. And "Cantonese (Yue)" is just about the worst possible name for this article. The best name would be "Yue language"; the current name "Yue Chinese" is an acceptable second-best. Any name involving the word "Cantonese" is misleading, since Cantonese strictly speaking refers only to the best-known and most widely spoken dialect of Yue. Do most people call this language "Cantonese" in English? Sure, because they're not bothering to distinguish between Cantonese and Yue. But an encyclopedia article doesn't have the luxury of being sloppy in its reference. Most people call the Netherlands "Holland" too, but it would be insanity to move our article on that country to Holland (Netherlands). WP:COMMONNAME is great, but it must sometimes be overridden by other concerns, such as having an article title that is both unambiguous and factually correct. "Yue (Cantonese)" is neither of those things. +Angr 22:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple (perhaps most?) of the RfM-supporters oppose the "X Chinese" formula. Perhaps we could shift to "X language" then, going with a dialectological definition of language and dismissing those who insist these are dialects, if you have the stomach for it. But that would be another discussion for another place. — kwami (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's very funny (rename request or unilateral move over and over until just now, it's sitting there) , since that's exactly what has happened to name this article as "Yue Chinese". 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Suggest Cantonese (dialect group). to use (A) it's WP:COMMONNAME and to (B) distinguish it from the dialect "Cantonese" used in Hong Kong and other areas. (And TAUGHT in Hong Kong schools) 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That might work. But then we'd be forced to ask, why not "Mandarin (dialect group)" (as opposed to Mandarin dialects)? "Wu (dialect group)"? And if people don't like those, we'd end up back here again. In any case, I think proposals for a new name need to be separate from this RfM. — kwami (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And you're the one stirring the pot all the time. As for Mandarin, per WP standards, that should be Mandarin (dialect group) as "dialects" is used as disambiguation, so should be parenthesized. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Common names

The following are examples of common names[2] that Wikipedia uses as article titles instead of a more elaborate, formal or scientifically precise alternative:

   * Bill Clinton (not "William Jefferson Clinton")
   * Snoop Dogg (not "Cordozar Calvin Broadus")
   * Hulk Hogan (not "Terry Gene Bollea")
   * Venus de Milo (not "Aphrodite of Melos")
   * Guinea pig (not Cavia porcellus)
   * Nazi Party (not Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)

One can argue Yue_Chinese is closer to 粤语. But ask anyone on the street and they will identify it with Cantonese. So having Cantonese (Yue) would be far more descriptive well according to arguments already present. One thing I do agree with you is this debate is about the accuracy of the description of this articleVisik (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But why should the title "Cantonese (Yue)" be applied to this article, and not to the article currently at Cantonese? Both are commonly called "Cantonese", and both are cladistically Yue. How would the parenthetical actually disambiguate anything? That's a bit like calling the US state of Georgia "Georgia", and the ex-soviet state of Georgia "Georgia (state)". — kwami (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad comparison. The states are both called Georgia. The equivalent would be if you called the article "Peach state". Which is pretty much what Yue Chinese is. Benjwong (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Good comparison. There are two states named 'Georgia'. Therefore either one could be called 'Georgia (state)' without disambiguating anything. There are two Yue lects called 'Cantonese'. Therefore either one could be called 'Cantonese (Yue)' without disambiguating anything. As for 'Peach state', you got it backwards: calling Georgia the 'Peach state' is more like calling Yue 'Cantonese'. Commonly done, but not particularly precise. — kwami (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are still mistaken with that comparison. Both could be called "Georgia (state)" in theory. State has many meanings. One of them suggest country of its own. In fact I would say the "state" declaration is even more clear than "Yue" declaration. Which means you should avoid the word "Yue" altogether. Benjwong (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm lost. I have no idea why one should follow from the other. We have two states, one called "Georgia", and the other called "Georgia", "Gruzinskaya", or "Sakartvelo". If we were to refer to the country with one of the latter names, it would be unambiguous. We have two lects, one called "Cantonese", and the other called "Cantonese" or "Yue". By using "Yue" for the latter, we clearly disambiguate them. Now, why can't we follow the example of "Georgia (US state)" and "Georgia (country)" with Cantonese? Only because the term "language" is controversial in the case of China. If we were to agree on overriding those objections, then we could follow the Georgian example with "Cantonese language" for Yue and "Cantonese dialect" for Guangfuhua:

• The Cantonese language, otherwise known as Yue Chinese, ... (see also Cantonese dialect)
• The Cantonese dialect, otherwise known as Canton dialect, Guangzhou dialect, Guangfu dialect, or Standard Cantonese, ... (see also Cantonese language)

— kwami (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not about to go back into this debate, but I just want to say that if almost every single native Cantonese speaker complain about using "Yue Chinese", then there is certainly a problem with it. I am not saying that "Cantonese (Yue)" is free of problems either, but "Yue Chinese" is not going to be a stable name. None of these votes, moves, discussions, etc. are ever conclusive. This is the 10th straight month that we've discussed this one single issue alone, and it doesn't appear anywhere near resolution. Yes, a couple of administrators can come in, adjudicate, do the move, but that clearly does not automatically negate all the opposition to it, and won't negate any such future opposition, which is sure to continue even if some users like myself have voluntarily left the discussion due to the poisoned environment here. We might have to look for a Danzig-Gdansk-type solution to compromise on both sides, but in this rather hostile setting I am not about to put forth any more proposals. Colipon+(Talk) 22:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

On a lighter note, we should probably submit this to the Signpost. The wider Wikipedia community would be interested in this. Colipon+(Talk) 22:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the English WP, so the usage in Cantonese, although not irrelevant, is far less important than the English sources kwami listed above. As for the rest of WP I suspect they are sick of hearing about this debate as it repeatedly comes up at WP:RM, WP:Rfc, WP:China and elsewhere.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

When a closed group, ethnic or otherwise, demands treatment for an article that others do not want, we call that setting up a 'walled garden'. It's an issue with Macedonia (and throughout the Balkans), with Palestine (including historical mentions of it), and with numerous articles on religion, where adherents of a religion want it accorded special treatment. We can't accommodate any of this, even if the special interest groups cry foul for eternity. If those opposed to this name have a reason for their opposition that applies to more than just their walled garden, they should be able to make it understandable to the rest of us. Disruptive motions like this petulant RfM are not going to accomplish it, and the only arguments I can remember hearing are CommonName, that the name's Mandarin in origin, and that only Cantonese should decide on what to call Cantonese in English. The first is true enough, but the common name is taken by a topic that has more right to it than this one, and we commonly depart from the common name for this and similar reasons (e.g. 'Republic of China' rather than the much more common name of 'Taiwan'); the second is irrelevant; and the last is spurious. So all we have is a weak CommonName argument that can be made to support the current name as easily as oppose it. Any instability is due to walled-garden arguments that can be countered the same way we counter Greeks demanding that Macedonia has no right to its name, Pakistanis claiming that Pakistan is 3000 years old, or psychics claiming that palmistry is real. — kwami (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is no where close to a "walled garden" issue. The British settlers in the area have been calling it Cantonese forever. Basically Yue is a pinyin of 粵. Ironically nobody cares to moving Mandarin Chinese to Beifong (北方). Try doing that move. Tell them it is "walled garden" to prevent moving Mandarin to Beifong. Watch how many people will complain. Kwami, I have heard your arguement for the English name for Yue. It is not convincing at all. About 11 book sources were listed above. For certain I can get far more than 11 books that has no mentioning of Yue at all and refers only to Cantonese. I am suggesting the name Cantonese (Yue) or Yue (Cantonese). Basically just enough to handle both cases. Benjwong (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But there's no problem with the name "Mandarin", so why would anyone want to move it? We only get to sub-optimal names when there is no optimal name.

And I could come up with more than the 11 sources above. This isn't a numbers game. There are two general approaches among sources that distinguish these topics: Yue vs Cantonese, and Cantonese vs Canton dialect/Standard Cantonese or the like. Since we've agreed on using 'Cantonese' for the dialect, it's 'Yue' for the language. That is the common usage in English.

"Cantonese (Yue)" is an erroneous name. If we'd had a reasonably rational name like "Yue (Cantonese)", I would not have pushed so hard for a move. — kwami (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No matter how you move, "Cantonese" has disambiguation issues. Is like accepting "Mandarin" for the people group. And now you have to purposely move Mandarin dialect to Beifong to avoid disambiguation issues. Is not really needed. Yue is still NOT yet the common usage in English. However if you want to move it to Yue Cantonese now, I know I am ok with it. That is a more sensible choice to Yue Chinese, which nobody uses and doesn't help search engine findings. Benjwong (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Northern Chinese would be a much better name for the article on the northern Chinese dialect area and I have been advocating this - my proposal at the WikiProject is still open. Mandarin was coined as the name for the standard / prestige form. The use for the dialect area with most of China's population is an extension which is a stretch and uninfomative for those not already familiar with the situation. --JWB (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just astounded by the audacious rhetoric and spin that has been attached to what was a good-faith discussion. Macedonia??!! Since when is calling a language by its common English name equivalent to Balkan politics? Also, Kwami's point is not very sound despite all those sources he lists. A lot of those sources refer to "Yue dialects", some just "Yue". Both of those are fine, and I had advanced an earlier proposal for "Yue dialects" which did not gain much favour. "Yue Chinese" is basically not used anywhere. Editors have dug up a grand total of 3 sources (Ethnologue being one) that actually cite the string "Yue Chinese", but these are anecdotal and far from established usage. Thus, the strongest argument that admins used to move this article to "Yue Chinese" was that it was "consistent" with the other Chinese varieties. This assumes that the naming conventions for Wu Chinese, Min Chinese, Xiang Chinese etc. is "correct", which is highly contentious. That system has no consensus either (look up the discussion history) but because there are people adamantly doing the moves, those opposed without administrative powers can only sit on the sidelines and watch as their own languages get butchered with these pedantic, non-English, non-Chinese, and non-standard, naming conventions to conform to some artificial "system" designated purely for Wikipedia. This is not to mention that the system itself is not even consistent - "Mandarin Chinese" is fully "English", "Min Chinese" is half pinyin half English, while Hakka (language) is neither pinyin nor really English. Colipon+(Talk) 02:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if a different reasonable title had been in the running, it would be another matter. But the previous title was simply wrong, and so an embarrassment. At least the current title is correct, and therefore objectively an improvement. Perhaps someone smarter than me will come up with a proposal which is factually correct, unambiguous, and incorporates the name 'Cantonese'. — kwami (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thereing lies the rub: names others considered reasonable were somehow "unsuitable" or "inappropriate". Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If a name is factually incorrect, as the previous name was, then of course it's inappropriate. Some people refer to China as "Beijing", but "Beijing (China)" would be an inappropriate name for the article on China because it doesn't mean "China", it means "Beijing". — kwami (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• First I've heard. I have heard, though, of people using 'Beijing' to represent 'the Central Chinese Government', in much the same way as people use 'Washington' to refer to 'the US Government'. You're clutching at straws. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What I find even more strange is the heavy push to XXX Chinese, when not one of these dialects contain the character 中?? Earlier I said nobody in the west would like to see a move to Spanish Latin, French Latin etc. Benjwong (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But the Chinese name is not a good argument for or against an English name, any more than English should dictate the Chinese name.

If Spanish and French were still considered Latin, the way Cantonese and Mandarin are considered Chinese, your ironic suggestions would actually be decent titles, just as we have Moroccan Arabic and Egyptian Arabic, and I wouldn't object to them. Of course, if Cantonese and Mandarin were recognized as separate languages the way Spanish and French are, we wouldn't be having this problem. — kwami (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks to this Kwami-farce, not only do we have discussion and straw man arguments in hundreds of kb, we now have a large number of articles linked to Yue Chinese, when the editors clearly meant Cantonese. Someone will have to go through 3000+ articles to dab them back to where they were intended. Thanks a fucking bunch. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think resorting to name calling and cursing would do you any better --LLTimes (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for allowing me to blow off some of the considerable steam built up over the last 18 months because of this. ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Colipon said above that we made up "X Chinese" for WP. He knows, of course, that is false, and that that wording was simply taken from Ethnologue, which established the ISO standards. Although he does not object to the term Yue (there are two objections here, against Yue and more specifically against Yue Chinese), he says we have only 3 attestations of the phrase "Yue Chinese". Well, it didn't take me long to dig up quite a few others:

• Early China, Volume 5‎ (1980) Society for the Study of Early China (Berkeley)

"Yue Chinese is a group of dialects closely related to Cantonese, the standard speech of Canton City and Hong Kong. Although the Yue speaking region ..."

• An ethnohistorical dictionary of China‎ (1998) James Stuart Olson

"The term "Yue" is used here to describe the speakers of the Yue Chinese language."

"The language is tonal, based on an eight-tone system, and is closely related to the Yue Chinese language"

• Peoples of the Buddhist world: a Christian prayer diary‎ (2004) Paul Hattaway

"Overview of the Cantonese: Other Names: Yue. Yue Chinese. Yuet. Yuet Yue, Gwong Dung Waa, Cantonese."

• Nationalism and ethnoregional identities in China‎ (1998) William Safran

"Not so for their Min and Yue Chinese comrades. Yet while external pressure to use Mandarin is strong, speakers of these 'dialects' often strongly identify themselves with their language and locale."

[Okay, here they're speaking of people rather than language, but it shows how easily such collocations are created]

• Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world‎ (2008) Keith Brown, Sarah Ogilvie

"Table 3: List of Sinitic languages/dialects (Chappell, 2001: 6)

Kejia or Hakka (Hakka Chinese) (scattered throughout SE China in small communities in the Yue and Min areas)

Yue (Yue Chinese) (Guangdong and Guangxi provinces; Cantonese)"

"Table 6: Functions of classifiers in individual languages

III. Classification & individualization & relationalization

Cantonese (Yue Chinese) (classifiers can be used in possessive and relative contructions)

• Reading development in Chinese children‎ (2003) Catherine McBride-Chang, Hsuan-Chih Chen

"The third most commonly used language is Yue Chinese (Cantonese being one variety of it)"

• Ethnologue, Volume 1‎ (2000) Barbara F. Grimes, Joseph Evans Grimes

"Bilingualism in Yue Chinese of Guanxi is reported to be high."

• Macau: city of commerce and culture‎ (1987) R. D. Cremer

"All Yue people have to learn to speak the standard Cantonese, and other non-Yue Chinese have to learn to speak standard Cantonese for business and survival."

[again, people rather than language, but an easy collocation]

• Opportunities and challenges of bilingualism‎ (2002) Li Wei, Jean-Marc Dewaele, Alex Housen

"The next 10 are Javanese, Korean, French, Vietnamese, Telugu, Yue Chinese, Marathi, Tamil, Turkish and Urdu."

• A dictionary of language‎ (2001) David Crystal

"Hong Kong: ... Yue Chinese (Cantonese) is spoken by c.98% of the population."

"Macao: ... Yue Chinese (Cantonese) is the first language of most of the population."

• Global sourcebook of address data management (1999) Graham R. Rhind

"Wu Chinese (77 175 000 speakers); Xiang Chinese (36 015 000, no written form); Yue Chinese (Cantonese, 46 305 000 speakers)"

• The Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, Volume 5‎ (1994) R. E. Asher, J. M. Y. Simpson

"Nearly 100 percent of the population (438000) are ethnic Chinese and speak Yue Chinese (Cantonese)"

• Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area‎ (1995)

"These first two forms have very familiar characteristics (cp. the Yue Chinese), and would appear to confirm the suggested relation of Chinese [X] to the Tibeto-Burman words."

• Um-- slips, stumbles, and verbal blunders, and what they mean‎ (2008) Michael Erard

"In Mandarin Chinese, people say neige, which means "that", and in Yue Chinese, they say ku, which can also mean "this." "

• Empires of the word (2005) Nicholas Ostler

"many of the languages (nine out of twenty) are spoken in civilisations sustained by rice as a staple crop (Bengali, Japanese, Korean, Wu and Yue Chinese ..."

• Human behavior in military contexts‎ (2008) Jim Blascovich, Christine R. Hartel

"if every patrol contained a person capable of communicating in the local language; for example, in modern-day engagements in Vietnam (Vietnamese, Yue Chinese, and Hmong)"

• The world atlas of language structures, Volume 1‎ (2005) Martin Haspelmath

"Another source of “th” sounds is the loss of the sibilant quality in a fricative of the /s/ or /z/ type, as has occurred in some varieties of Yue Chinese"

• International journal of the sociology of language, Issue 81, Page 44

"'Wa!' is used only among females in the region of Guangzhou or Hong Kong; the dialects used there belong to Yue Chinese."

• Tsuji, N. (1977): "Murmured Initials in Yue Chinese and Proto-Yue Voiced Obstruents"

• Language expansion and linguistic world order‎ (2003) Joshua A. Fishman

"Of those languages with fewer than 100 million speakers, Punjabi and Yue Chinese (each with 85 million speakers) take the lead."

• Taiwan in the twenty-first century‎ (2003) Xiaobing Li, Zuohong Pan

"genetic evidence concerning the connections between indigenous peoples from different tribal groups in Taiwan and Southern Yue Chinese"

[again, people rather than language, but the same easy production of the phrase]

• Studies in African linguistics, Volume 29‎ (2000) UCLA, Ohio State

"Indeed, the diachronic relationship between voiced stop release and pitch lowering is rather well established. In Yue Chinese, for example, ..."

— kwami (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. But I maintain my point - to dig them up is one thing, but to say they are in mainstream use is quite another. In fact, the Cantonese speakers here oppose it precisely because it's not in mainstream use, not for some frivolous political reason like Kwami is trying to suggest - or else they would've heard "Yue Chinese" used at some point in their lives, at least amongst the English speakers of Hong Kong. "Do you speak Yue Chinese?" "No, what's that? I speak Cantonese", "But Wikipedia tells me it's called 'Yue Chinese!'" "Trust me, I am a Cantonese speaker, and none of us call it 'Yue Chinese.'" That is the problem. Not even the foreigners and the native English speakers call it Yue Chinese. Only select linguists. Don't believe me? Ask a native English speaker living in Guangzhou or Hong Kong and say "Yue Chinese" and you'll probably draw a blank look. Colipon+(Talk) 11:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that if we had only one article, it should be at "Cantonese". But we don't: we have two. True, most people just use the word "Cantonese", but then most people don't distinguish the two. Therefore their usage is not directly relevant. Among people who do distinguish them, there are three ways of doing so, with "Cantonese" by default as either the language or the dialect, and the other usage requiring some dab, or else using it for neither and with both usages requiring a dab. I've tried all three here on WP, and all three have met with howls of protest. Well, which one is it to be? We came to the consensus here on WP that the primary usage of the word "Cantonese" is for the dialect (Taishanese vs Cantonese etc.), so, based on that decision, we need to look at what is common usage for those who use "Cantonese" for the dialect. Nearly all such sources use "Yue". Now, there are several variants on that, but any of them would be better than the irrational title in the RfM above. Among the variants are your "Yue dialects", "Yue language", "Yue regionalect", and "Yue Chinese". The latter is used by the organization that sets up the ISO standards, and is widely used in print, even if it's rare in speech, and is what consensus has come down on again and again. The fact that several editors vehemently object to the consensus doesn't invalidate it: there are many that vehemently object to evolution, but that doesn't change the consensus on that, no matter how passionate they are. We look at the quality of the arguments when deciding such things, and thus keep coming back to Yue. Now, if we were having this debate over two reasonable titles, one with "Cantonese" and one without, that would be a different thing, but the title of the RfM above is logically invalid.

As for "Yue" being in common use, shall I cite the numerous lay sources I found that simply quote Ethnologue? Then there is Reader's Choice, which advertises itself as "the world's best-known reading skills textbook for ESL/EFL students". The word actually is fairly common in print, even if not in speech, and we are after all a print encyclopedia. And it is the common usage among those who distinguish the language for the dialect and call the dialect "Cantonese", as we do. — kwami (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

An overwhelming number of sources DO NOT USE Yue. In fact there is nothing that makes these sources any more valid than the others. I can find a source that suggest the highest branch is called Guangdonghua. That is even more direct of a romanization. It would fit right along with Xiang, Hakka, Gan, Min, all of which are already romanized. And that would leave Mandarin as the only name that needs to be changed afterwards. Maybe that is the direction we should be going to for consistency. Benjwong (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

An overwhelming number of sources do not distinguish the two, and so are irrelevant. But sure, make another RfM for Guangdonghua. — kwami (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)