Talk:Yue Chinese/Archive 9

Naming

I don't really like the current name ...really messy. I think we need to have some basic connection between all Chinese subdivision languages.

Example:
Mandarin Chinese
Wu Chinese
Min Chinese
Xiang Chinese
Gan Chinese
Hakka Chinese <--- I don't know what happened here

So I think it's better to make it:
Yue Chinese (Cantonese) or Cantonese (Yue Chinese)
Other wise change all of them into Cantonese Language, Mandarin Language and etc so it would appear more organize --LLTimes (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• You should check the archives here and at Talk:Cantonese. The Cantonese naming issue I hope is settled, with a main article called Cantonese which was renamed after Standard Cantonese and Canton dialect were merged, after a long and protracted debate. I don't think anyone wants to re-open that debate any time soon.

• This article was once called Cantonese, then Yue Chinese then its current name. I would say the naming issue here is still unresolved, i.e. not many people are happy with the current name, but a recent discussion on changing it was inconclusive. This was only a short time ago, so is easy to find here. It might be worth restarting as maybe after a break it will be easier to reach a consensus.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• hi thanks for responding, I quickly skim through the talks and found that some user want to include "Yue Chinese" while some want to add "Cantonese". I think my option is more better. It's true that in english world, when people ask a Chinese what chinese dialect they speak, most likely they would answer either Mandarin , Cantonese or etc. However, in China. People would most likely say Yue Chinese 粤语/广东话 in Chinese form. Option like "Yue Chinese (Cantonese) or Cantonese (Yue Chinese)" serve both sides. If i missed something, just message me :) --LLTimes (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Cantonese was so named as it's the common name for the language in English, although there's still some disagreement over the scope of it, i.e. how broadly or narrowly to apply it. The problem here though is there's no common name for the dialect group. Sometimes it's "Cantonese", as in the west speakers of the different related dialects are often lumped together. But the other article is, I think more correctly, Cantonese.

• My preference here is "Yue Chinese". "Yue" is the academic term but on its own would just confuse people. "Yue Chinese" is a fair rendition of the Chinese, and matches the other top level groups pretty well. But as I wrote, we've already had a debate and there was no clear consensus - it's the most undeceive debate I've ever been involved in,--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• LLTimes, if you wish to reopen the discussion, I would support "Yue Chinese (Cantonese)". Personally, I think it has the best of both worlds. I would be just as happy with "Yue Chinese", and even "Yue (Cantonese)" would be an improvement over what we have now. kwami (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yue Chinese still redirect here. Whether there is any new reasoning to redo the discussion. I don't see it yet. Benjwong (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• As mentioned by previous users in last discussion. Cantonese is strictly about Guangzhou/Canton City/HK Dialect and ti does not cover other dialect like Guinan or Taishan. Also we already had a Cantonese page so it's unreasonable to make this one Cantonese which describes general language and it's dialects. It's like Shanghainese that's trying to take over the Wu Chinese page. With that being said. I support Yue Chinese (Cantonese) or Cantonese (Yue Chinese) to make it fair for both side? or wise i would support Yue Chinese which IMO is more better and suitable b/c Two Cantonese page can easily confuse people like me and other viewers.--LLTimes (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the last discussion on the name took place before the other article was moved to "Cantonese". IMO the names are too close for clarity, and that is reason enough to move this article. Note that this article was basically a toss-up between "Cantonese (Yue)" and "Yue (Cantonese)", and there is no consensus on the current name. kwami (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• okay...so what's the problem holding the change? and how can i start a consensus? --LLTimes (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Go ahead and start a new section below for a poll if you like. I'd give people, say, the choice between your preference, the status quo, and a few of the other suggestions. People can rank them, so that if their first choice loses out, their vote will go to their second choice, etc. kwami (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• People, do native speakers of Hakka, Min, etc actually call what they speak Hakka Chinese, Min Chinese, etc? I certainly have not come across anyone who do that in their native tongue. All this post-scripted "Chinese" business is just a fictitious invention by some busy-body with no knowledge of these languages or their customary use. 86.133.102.79 (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Poll

The proposal is to change the name of this article to be more in line with other branches of Chinese, and to distinguish it from Cantonese.

Please vote for suitable name, and rank your choices.

1) Yue Chinese

2) Yue Chinese (Cantonese)

3) Yue (Cantonese)

4) Cantonese (Yue) [no change]

5) Cantonese (Yue Chinese)

Survey

• (1) Yue Chinese (2) Yue Chinese (Cantonese) (3) Yue (Cantonese)LLTimes (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• (1) Yue Chinese (Cantonese), (2) Yue Chinese, (3) Yue (Cantonese) —kwami (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• (1) Cantonese (Yue) (2) Yue (Cantonese) (3) Yue Chinese (Cantonese) Colipon+(Talk) 00:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• (1) Yue Chinese (2) Yue Chinese (Cantonese) (3) Yue (Cantonese) --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• (1) Cantonese (Yue) (2) Yue (Cantonese) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• (1) Cantonese (Yue) (2) Yue (Cantonese) (3) Cantonese (Yue Chinese) Benjwong (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• (1) Cantonese (Yue) (2) Yue (Cantonese) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• (1) Yue Chinese (2) Yue Chinese (Cantonese) (3) Yue (Cantonese)— ASDFGH =] ^talk? 05:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• (1) Yue (Cantonese) (2) Cantonese (Yue) Akerbeltz (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• (1) Yue Chinese (Cantonese) (2) Yue (Cantonese) Bathrobe (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• (1) Cantonese — (2) Cantonese (language) — (3) Cantonese (Yue) — (4) Cantonese (Chinese) — (5) Cantonese Chinese — (6) Cantonese (Yue Chinese) — (7) Yue Cantonese — (8) Yue Cantonese (Chinese) — (9) Yue (Cantonese) — (10) Yue Chinese (Cantonese) — (11) Yue (Cantonese Chinese) — (12) Cantonese Chinese (Yue) — 70.29.211.138 (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• (1) Yue Chinese (2) Yue Chinese (Cantonese) (3) Yue (Cantonese) Tvtr (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• (1) Cantonese (2) Cantonese (Yue) (3) Cantonese (Yue Chinese) ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• (1) Cantonese (Yue) (2) Cantonese (Yue Chinese) (3) Yue Chinese (Cantonese) --!xobile123 (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC) [account created specifically to vote here]

Discussion

• Can someone (a kind person) states why they picked Cantonese (Yue)? I'm confused..maybe b/c i just join the discussion lol--LLTimes (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• You mean originally? We couldn't agree on a name, and finally had a straw poll between "Cantonese (Yue)" and "Yue (Cantonese)", as the two names that people got the least upset about. At least one person voted for the name that was ahead at the time just to get it over with and move on to the problem of what to name what is now at Cantonese, and there never was any real consensus. This has been going on for years. As you can see, right now we're evenly split 4:4 between "Yue Chinese" and "Cantonese (Yue)", and if you knock out those, we're split 4:4 between Yue Chinese (Cantonese)" and "Yue (Cantonese)", which would be something of a concession by each side (conceding on the inclusion of "Cantonese" by the one side, and conceding on giving primacy to "Yue" by the other), if we can read such things into a poll. kwami (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Actually, this whole thing is totally disingenuous. If the poll doesn't give the 'right result', there'll just be another one until it gives the results desired by Kwami. The participation so far indicates that many people are already tired of this. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, if you don't like it, it must be a conspiracy against you. And we're all tired of it. I didn't ask for this poll, and we never have come to any conclusion on the name, so it's still an open issue. The discussion was basically 'Let's just pick s.t. to get this over with so we can move on to the other article. Once that's done, we can return to this one.' Well, that one is done, and now we have returned to this one. kwami (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Conspiracy? Where? Don't go putting silly dilly ideas like that into my head – you never know how dangerous it can be... Ohconfucius ^¡digame!

This poll is missing some choices, like Cantonese (and moving that article back from whence it came, since this article use to sit at "Cantonese") 70.29.211.138 (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• The problem with this poll is that it has absolutely no debate. There is nothing new presented at all. LLTimes has never participated in any archive discussion before this. Benjwong (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• To be fair the archives are fairly intimidating, with discussions and polls that have often got bogged down or degenerated into overly personal debate. I for one welcome anyone who gets involved, and having not participated before should never be reason not to contribute.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• The page at Cantonese is there now after a long, drawn out but in the end largely satisfactory and conclusive process. I don't think it's going to move again soon. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think the previous debate have any good results, The reason why Yue Chinese was better choice than other was stated above and I personally don't think the current title should be kept. Example, Shanghainese is better known than it's other Wu Chinese counter part and it bares some resembling to this problem. If some how Shanghainese hijacked the Wu Chinese page and make it Shanghainese (Wu) then i would argue the same there. --LLTimes (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Cantonese should not be a choice here, since that was resolved in another debate awhile back at Talk:Cantonese#Requested move. Tvtr (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• I think these others need to be excluded too: anything with 'language' or 'dialect' (because of the perennial dispute over the status of Chinese and it's varities.). So not Cantonese (language). And not anything else that means the same as Cantonese, so no Cantonese (Chinese), etc., for the same reasons as given above.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Or "Cantonese (Yue Cantonese)"? Those are so marginal that they'd be eliminated in the first round anyway. kwami (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Kwami called for this because it is much too hard work for him to learn Chinese properly to the point of actually having a proper understanding of it. 86.133.102.79 (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Results

Okay, it's been 10 days. 6 for Yue Chinese [the terminology at Ethnologue], 4 for Cantonese (Yue) [the status quo], plus 1 for Yue (Cantonese) / Cantonese (Yue), and two anons. We have a majority for a name starting with "Yue", and if we went strictly by numbers (which we don't; polling does not substitute for discussion) the name would be "Yue Chinese". But we've had close to a tie, with Yue Chinese etc. only slightly ahead, since day one, so I doubt we're gonna reach any kind of consensus this way.

Can we have something more of a compromise? Of those who voted first for "Yue Chinese", all had "Yue Chinese (Cantonese)" as their second choice. Of those who voted to keep this here at "Cantonese (Yue)", all had "Yue (Cantonese)" as their next choice [except for our "special" voter, who had "Yue Chinese"]. So it would seem everyone can agree on putting "Yue" first, but also include "Cantonese", at least as their second choice. If we were to go on the numbers, such a compromise would be 6:5 Yue Chinese (Cantonese) vs Yue (Cantonese); if we include our anon & 'special' voter [debatable whether they should be included; they don't seem to be informed of the situation], it only changes to 7:6.

So, can we agree to narrow it down to those two? That those who want just "Yue Chinese" agree to include "Cantonese", and that those who want "Cantonese (Yue)" agree to put "Yue" first? That would be a degree of progress. kwami (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say not. There's no consensus for either, which means no-one's especially happy with them, which means unfortunately this debate will be probably restarted a few weeks or months from now by someone else who notices the odd and inconsistent name. Better to try the only two with multiple support if it's worth retrying. I don't know the outcome will be any different but it will be easier to achieve consensus will just two, and either outcome (no change or a name which actually means something) makes some sense. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To make it effective, why not request a mediator to make this go fast? As of now, I think my original proposal are not the ideal options. So I would rather support Yue Chinese over them now.--LLTimes (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

We have a clear result. When people's first choice gets knocked out of the running, we count their second. So the result is "Yue Chinese". It's just not the result by a very wide margin, and so is not a consensus. In order to get a consensus, I think we're gonna have to compromise. Are people willing to do that? I don't want us to just pick a name because we have a 5:4 (or 7:6) vote for it. kwami (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If the vote choice is to move "Yue" to the lead. So Cantonese (Yue) -> Yue (Cantonese). That may have some support. However we are opening a free vote every week that completely rename this article to anything. I agree with Kwami that the consensus are too close to 50/50. That whole Yue Chinese name needs to drop off the list. It was temporary. Is like renaming Taiwanese Mandarin to "ROC Mandarin Chinese". Benjwong (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The choice with the greatest support should be dropped? And please show me the debates that have been opened "every week". Try to be serious here. Yue Chinese is a legitimate title. A compromise to a choice with less support would be Yue Chinese (Cantonese). kwami (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I haven't participated in the debates, I have been been actively reading them. I'm not here to open a new debate about the naming issue, but what I do want to express is that the arguements in terms of naming the collective Cantonese articles have been going on long enough that all the points people have been making are going in circles. We can't have new people come here every week and post a little disagreement and then ask for another vote after all the pages and pages of debating that contributors here have gone through. Once you folks go through another name change, and in keeping with previous history (and seeing how history seems to repeat itself here), a flood of inactive Wikipedia users will suddenly start showing up with their unhappiness about the change, and then we're going to have another re-vote, and then revert back to the status quo, where the cycle will begin again. All I have to say is that perhaps if there is a desire by a particular user who wishes to open up the polls again, then he/she should have some solid verifiable research/evidence as to enlighten the subject further, instead of just adding another personal opinion or rhetoric. Or at least perhaps a refractory period in between votes should be considered/discussed here. Because who is to say that I can't show up tomorrow and ask for another poll (since I haven't asked for one here before)? The same goes for any other new person who comes here asking for another poll on a recurring issue; are people here just going to cater to everyone that comes here asking for one? I hope you get my point. --!xobile123 (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• There's never been consensus on this; the issue was left open. We had decided to leave the article at a temporary name, "Cantonese (Yue)", until we could settle where we should have the Standard Cantonese article, which was complicating things, and then return to decide this one. The move of that article to "Cantonese" made the name of this article less tenable. When I suggested finishing the job a few months ago, there was little interest, and I dropped it. Now it's been picked up again. It's not a matter of starting a new debate every week, as Ben would like us to believe, but of finishing a debate that's been going on for a year. kwami (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the foregoing. It's time to call time. Stuff second preferences, because ther are no agreed guidelines here or anywhere else how to interpret these prefs. IMHO, this STV always leads to the option people want the least. The way things have always worked here in WP, 'no-consensus' defaults to no change. I don't expect anyone to come back within the next 18 months attempting to change the title of this article again. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This was a temporary name so we could settle where to put "Cantonese". If we can come to a compromise, great; otherwise we go with majority rule. I'm willing to compromise. Are you? kwami (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If we want to be exact, the original name that lasted the longest was "Cantonese (linguistics)". That did not include the word "Yue". Everything else is technically temporary. The reason for miles of debates is because we tried to get rid of the word linguistics (which was ok with everyone). And standardize all dialects to "XXX Chinese". That is when we ran into problems. I think user !xobile123 has a good point. Unless this is new heavy research, we should not waste any more time. Benjwong (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we should finish the debate that you've been trying to sidetrack for so long because you don't like linguistic terms. We're going with something with "Yue" in it; the question is exactly what. Do you wish to help, or should we do it without you?

"Cantonese (linguistics)" wouldn't be any good anyway, because Cantonese is also "Cantonese (linguistics)". Tags like "(linguistics)" are supposed to disambiguate, not ambiguate.

As I see it, half of us want "Yue Chinese", and half want "Cantonese". We can compromise by having both. kwami (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Turn Consensus into majority rule??? No, that's not how it works. What I said above. There is nothing to prevent a 'temporary situation' from becoming semi-permanent because nobody can agree to a better outcome, which looks like the case here. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Then try being constructive. If you're obstructive, we'll just ignore you. The current name is just a straw poll put into effect because nobody could agree on anything better.kwami (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how accusing Benjwong of "sidetracking" and giving him the label of "you don't like linguistic terms" is constructive. Nor do I think threatening to ignore the above user is constructive either. The personal insults are slowly creeping in, let's keep this to debating about the real issues. --!xobile123 (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I over reacted. We have a long history here. kwami (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yep, just what I thought. You got nerve... fancy trying to tag me as "obstructive" when it's you who's not getting the message! Seems like you're just a bullying admin. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

But you are being obstructive. "Stuff second preferences", we need to abandon the poll because you don't like where it's going. That's pretty much the definition of obstructive. If you have anything constructive to add, then by all means do so. If you have a better compromise, then by all means suggest it. But so far, it's been your way or nothing, because you know better than the rest of us. Don't call me a bully for calling you out. kwami (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should we "compromise" when you are trying to ride roughshod over consensus? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus? When in the long history of this debate has there ever been a consensus? And I'm trying to compromise with you when the name I favor came out ahead, hardly a consensus against that name! kwami (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you weren't an Admin, I would have forgiven you for not knowing how the consensual process works. 'No change' is a consensus default. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

10 days? Why are you calling after 10 days? RfCs are open for months. In fact, I would suggest that since this isn't an RfC, and we've had several regarding the naming of this article, that it's not a particularly valid poll. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: To anyone wanting to do the move of this article - an uninvolved admin should do the move, otherwise this will get very messy. (ie. not an involved user) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Months? No, usually it's about 5 days. We've had twice that. kwami (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

We're not having any more of you and your abbreviated windows of discussion... If it's going to be discussed any more, it merits a looooonger discussion – perhaps a traditional 30 day RfC. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay I don't get you guys, most of us offered our opinions and now you jumped in? The poll is around half and half. Secondly, why can't you offer some good reason why we should keep the current title, which IMO is misleading. We have three article with Cantonese infront of it. Like I said, Mandarin is roughly based off the prime Beijing dialect which is consider the standard Mandarin dialdect right? Why can't Mandarin chinese change to Beijinger (Mandarin). huh? Why can't Shanghainese change Wu Chinese into Shanghainese (Wu) or Suzhou (wu) for that matter. This is a simple problem and it doesn't have to be that complicated. The example set by Ben isn't a good one, citing (Taiwanese Mandarin to "ROC Mandarin Chinese". ) Taiwanese Mandarin is a dialect too, compare to this issue, It would be the Taiwanese whos going into Mandarin Chinese page and changing it into Taiwanese (Mandarin). There are also a little difference between Taiwanese Hokkien and Fujianese Hokkien but they are still categorized under Minnan Yu. While Xiamen Dialect is considered a standard.--LLTimes (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Runoff poll

The preferred name in the poll, "Yue Chinese", was ahead by too small a margin IMO to be statistically significant. I think (?) we can agree on that. The runner up was the status quo, though comments by several suggest they'd really prefer this to be at "Cantonese". I hope we can agree that article isn't moving anytime soon, since we finally got consensus for that name. So, can we do the same here? Who's with me that those of us who want "Yue Chinese" allow "Cantonese" in the title, as the common name, and that those of us who want "Cantonese" or "Cantonese (Yue)" allow the title to start with "Yue", to better dab from Cantonese? Based on the more popular proposals above, the two obvious choices would be "Yue Chinese (Cantonese)", following naming conventions and Ethnologue, and "Yue (Cantonese)", the close runner-up in the straw poll for the current name.

As I see it, the choices in the hope of a compromise are:

• Yue Chinese (Cantonese)
• Yue (Cantonese)
• no compromise (Yue X)
• no compromise (Cantonese X)
• (other ideas)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamikagami (talk • contribs) 2010-01-28T10:50:56

• Cantonese (Yue) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Cantonese (Yue). This problem isn't going to be solved out of the blue because of a name poll. This is the fifth or sixth name poll we have done and obviously there are some serious issues that are being overlooked. Some are not being addressed because of filibustering from parties involved in the process, and the debates have become at points personal and unproductive. We need a set of very fresh eyes to look at everything that has been said on these discussion pages and come to some kind of 'arbitration' position on how things should be conducted. That's the only way I can see this problem being solved. Until then I have no choice but to endorse the status quo. Colipon+(Talk) 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Take discussion and polling to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) in order to consider coordination with other branches of Chinese. Make effort to publicize discussion on other Chinese-related pages for greater participation. --JWB (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• FWIW, I missed the last poll, but I don't support any of the options left over in this runoff. I said somewhere before (probably buried by now) that I don't think this is how parentheses ought to be used on WP. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Which name do you prefer? kwami (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Endorse status quo, per Colipon. As I said above, I do not accept the premise that the article has to be moved. The current name is the status quo, and it should always be left in as a "choice". To strike it from the list would be totally unreasonable, IMHO. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this poll is premature, I say stop doing this every month, and let it alone for 6 months. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Poll is premature? It's been under discussion for a year! How many years do we need before we're ready for a poll?? kwami (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yue Chinese (Cantonese), consistency with other major subdivisions in Template:Chinese language. They are all named in ____ Chinese format. Tvtr (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Yue Chinese - I really don't think the compromises, or the current name which is also one, suit anyone.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

rʨanaɢ ^talk suggested a few other names. Most have "language" in them, which I think most of us have agreed to avoid, but he made one proposal I think has real merit:

• Yue Chinese–Cantonese

This avoids the problematic or false claim that this article is about Cantonese as a subcategory of Yue (as it does now) or about Yue as a subcategory of Cantonese, but rather presents Yue Chinese and Cantonese as synonyms. (I suppose we could also have "Yue-Cantonese", but I expect that would give the first-time reader little idea as to what the article is actually about.) What do people think? kwami (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC - article title

Since this has previously had RfCs on the naming of the article, I don't think it is appropriate to proceed without one. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

At issue here is what to call this article. For previous WP:RM and WP:RFC discussions, see the talk archives. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There is really two approaches. One is to do the modern take. Which says "everyone today call it Cantonese". Then there is the old/historical take. Which says "Yue came first". The current name is a compromise merge of Cantonese and Yue. Benjwong (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You have them backwards. We finally achieved consensus that "Cantonese" means primarily "Canton dialect" & the "standard" language, now at Cantonese. That is not up for debate. The question is what to call this topic, which, when we make the distinction, is known in English as "Yue", iso3 code "yue", Ethnologue name "Yue Chinese". kwami (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yue Chinese is not old as you said. It's true that Cantonese is newer however, it only best describes Canton/Guangzhou Dialect or 廣州話. 廣東話=粵語 is best describes as Yue-yu or Yue Chinese. The Taishanese/Toisanese and Guangxi Yue speakers I've met tend to differentiate themselves from Guangzhou dialect which are often called Cantonese. Reasons for why Cantonese shouldn't take over Yue Chinese page are provided above. The current title is more of an Original Research. --LLTimes (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

LL, I think there was broad agreement that the content of these Cantonese/Yue related pages needs sorting i.e. one to deal with Cantonese in the commonly understood sense (HK/GJ dialects) and one that deal with the linguistic concept of Yue as a group of dialects. So yes, the page on Yue (whatever it ends up being called) should not deal exclusively with Cantonese (HK/GJ) but include Toisan etc to give the wider view of Yue. But for now, we're just trying to find a name that is acceptable for this page. Content can then be sorted. By the way, not that I feel age has anything to do with it but what do you mean with Yue not being "as old as you said"? Akerbeltz (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That means I don't think the word dates/goes back ancient ancient times. I felt disappointed at this discussion, people came in and told us that there had been a lot of polls and debate about the title that they are tired of it but didn't provide a reason for why we can't use Yue Chinese as the statues quo. I said if they are tired then why drag the current poll to the point that it's stuck and make us feel tired too? Anyway...until ‘then' which is ?? . ya --LLTimes (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem, LL, seems to be that several of these editors have stated that they object to the word Yue, that they object to it in principal because it is a Mandarin word, and they find it offensive to give Cantonese a Mandarin name. They lost that argument, because it's quite clear that Yue is also the normal English word (just as in English we use the Mandarin rather than Taiwanese name of Taiwan; the iso3 code for the language is even "yue"), and I haven't heard it for a while, but I suspect that much of the opposition still stems from opposition to the word itself, and has little to do with common usage in English or normal Wikipedia naming conventions. kwami (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If what you said is true then I have nothing else to say. What's so bad or "sad" about using Mandarin pinyin of Yue? I don't really hear Taiwanese going Daiwanese anytime or me changing Fujian to Hokkien. It's perfectly fine and academically, modern linguistic uses the word Yue, while describing Cantonese as a mere dialect of Canton.I think most of the opposition editors actually sees Cantonese as a translation of Yue (粤) , many websites online have blindly use Cantonese as the definition for Guangdong-hwa or Yue-yu. Would they agree if we use Yueh Chinese? --LLTimes (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the character itself, my dictionaries list that characters as far back as the small seal script. And neither me or kwami are upset about using Yue but there are a few (but rather vocal) objectors on the basis of it being Mandarin. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That mandarin pinyin usage of Yue was never a main reason in the discussion. The main reasons had more to do with why 粵 cannot be called Cantonese when clearly 粵 = 廣東. And 廣東 has been associated with "Canton" in the past before. Benjwong (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Since when was Canton ever meant for Guangdong? Canton = Guangzhou , Please check the discussion of Canton name here [1][2].--LLTimes (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

According to those archives, many users have already discussed the possibility that the english "Canton" have been referenced to Guangzhou or Guangdong in some ways before. Are you saying Canton has NEVER been Guangdong? My understanding is that it has. Benjwong (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually please cite a reliable Source that states Canton is/was commonly refering to Guangdong? All i know is that there was a mistranslation and the name was meant for Guangzhou. If there is no source, this constitutes as original research. --LLTimes (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It maybe considered a geographical mistranslation today on wiki according to that archive debate. But certainly not in the past when someone came up with the name Cantonese to describe the dialect, people, place. If you believe Yue is the only name, then when is 粵 Canton? I believe a very long time ago. Which basically goes back to what I was saying upfront. You want to accept the historical take only. Perhaps you have a source for us? Benjwong (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said Yue = Canton while i may accept that Canton is part of Yue. and don't speak for me. Please provide reliable sources on what you speak of. --LLTimes (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Canton PROVINCE - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=canton+province+china&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

Canton CITY - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=canton+city+china&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

It is trivially easy to find reliable sources that refer to both the province and the city as "Canton" in English. The fact that you don't believe it doesn't mean it's not true. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That is what I was saying. Depending on your view or source, Canton can be just about anything related to that area. Which is why we should not be limited to just Yue or Yue Chinese. Benjwong (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 70.29.210.242 for the link, it proves what he said and may be true . But i've already explain that there is a mistranslation and people use "Canton" mistakenly for both, where originally it was meant for Guangzhou. However, Yue Chinese is rather oftenly used by lingustics while linguistically Cantonese address the Canton dialect. We can the change the title to Yue Chinese and mention Cantonese in the introduction. The situation is quite similar to Guangzhou title.--LLTimes (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, this discussion on the word Canton is almost pointless. The word Cantonese may have derived from the word Canton, but they are still two different words. Canton may have referred to Guangzhou specifically in the past, but that does not mean Cantonese only refers to dialect spoken in Guangzhou. Usage could have evolved independently of the word Canton over time. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All i want to say is this (ISO 639-3: yue) [3][4]--LLTimes (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two WP:COMMONNAME ways that these are distinguished. One is to call iso3=yue "Cantonese" and the other "Standard Cantonese" or some other sub-category. We achieved consensus against this option when we moved the latter to "Cantonese". The second is to call iso3=yue "Yue" (or some other super-category) and the other "Cantonese". That is what we chose when we decided on "Cantonese" for the latter. Hong Qi Gong, your first choice for the standard language was to call it just "Cantonese". Now you want to call this article "Cantonese" as well. That doesn't fly. Benjwong, I know you preferred to call it "Guangzhou Cantonese", which would have enabled us to call this article just "Cantonese", but we did (finally) achieve consensus on that article. So, if we are to follow Wikipedia policy on using common English names, the name of this article should be based on "Yue". Whether it follows our Chinese naming conventions, and Ethnologue, with "Yue Chinese", or the runner-up for the straw poll with "Yue (Cantonese)", or s.t. else entirely, is what we need to discuss here. (I prefer "Yue Chinese (Cantonese)", which I see as a compromise between the two main possibilities if we didn't have the other article to worry about, but it looks like I don't have much support in that. So I'm willing to accept another Yue-based name.) kwami (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It could also be called Cantonese dialects since this article covers dialects other than the standard language, as well as the standard language; the other article is on the standard language, which is simply Cantonese because this is the most common connotation of "Cantonese". --JWB (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Yue (Cantonese)" is a small change from the current name. It does make sense. If someone can come up with a good reason to not use "Cantonese" in the name, then maybe "Yue Chinese" will go somewhere. The reasoning so far is not convincing. "Yue Chinese Cantonese" is a triple compromise. It is as long a name as "Latin United Kingdom English". Not realistic. The majority of the people have been against the word "dialect" or "language" long ago. Please see archives. Benjwong (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand why people should be opposed to keeping Cantonese in the name. iso3=yue does often go by that name, though usually not in the same source that also calls the standard language just "Cantonese" as we do. "Yue (Cantonese)" is somewhat acceptable to me, though in my mind still a bit vague. Ben, the reason I prefer "Yue Chinese (Cantonese)" is because it's a fusion of the two clearest names: Cantonese, as you've pointed out, but also Yue Chinese, which follows Ethnologue and our own naming conventions. It's not a triple compromise; in my mind, it's "Yue (Cantonese)" that's the triple compromise, as an abbreviation of "Yue Chinese (Cantonese)". IMO, the latter is the clearest, most unambiguous name I've seen proposed. And although a couple people have attacked me for trying to reach a compromise between the two sides, I do feel that both should be represented in the name, not just whoever happens to win the debate.

As for "dialects", yes, there is Mandarin dialects, but that's specifically an article on the various dialects of Mandarin, and contrasts with both Mandarin Chinese and Standard Mandarin. IMO we don't have that level of development with the Yue/Cantonese articles. kwami (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The objection rʨanaɢ has to the parenthetical name (see his talk page) is that "The problem with the current name (Cantonese (Yue)) is that it doesn't even state clearly what the article is about, and it doesn't clearly distinguish it from the article about the prestige dialect (currently called Cantonese)." Also, parentheticals are normally super-categories: "X (Y)" means "topic X, a subcategory of Y". "Cantonese (Yue)" thus would mean Cantonese as a type of Yue as opposed to non-Yue Cantonese, but this article is about Yue, not a subcategory of it, so that doesn't make any sense—worse, it's factually wrong. Similarly, "Yue (Cantonese)" would be Yue as a subcategory of Cantonese. I suppose that makes a certain amount of sense—it's modern Chinese Yue as opposed to ancient Tai Yue—but a better dab would be "Yue (Chinese)", because Yue is a subcategory of Chinese, whereas it's either a synonym or a super-category of Cantonese. I don't know of any other language article that uses two synonyms in the name. Usually when s.t. like that happens, they're hyphenated: "Yue-Cantonese". But if a reader isn't already familiar with the article, they couldn't tell what the topic is based on that title. Titles are supposed to tell the reader what the subject of the article is! "Yue Chinese–Cantonese" might be better: two synonyms, without either presented as a subcat of the other, and much clearer to the first-time reader what the article is actually about. kwami (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest some name that communicates to nonspecialists that the article focuses on dialects. "Yue" may be familiar to English-speaking Sinologists or linguists who are familiar with Chinese linguistics. Outside these circles, a reader is likely to assume that one or both terms refer to language in the everyday sense, i.e. the commonly encountered or standard varieties, rather than the study of the whole dialect area in which the most obscure and peripheral dialects are often of the greatest interest. Having something like "dialects", "dialect area", "division of Chinese", "linguistics", "language area", etc. in the title would communicate this. The words "Yue", "Cantonese", or "Chinese" do not communicate this to nonspecialists. --JWB (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point, but s.t. that's equally applicable to all our "X Chinese" articles. More a point for discussion of our naming conventions than just this article; if they all change, we can follow suite. kwami (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be discussed at the naming conventions page as I suggested. Cantonese is one of the most important and more problematic examples, matched only by Mandarin. --JWB (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

But we shouldn't hold up the naming of this article until that is resolved. There may be no desire to change our naming conventions (I don't know), but if there is, we can include this article under whichever name it happens to be at. So the motions are independent. kwami (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. After all, linguistics and dialect studies are not done by lay people and much of the terminology is inherently complex and opaque to non-specialists. Just consider pages such as Ingvaeonic, Ugric languages or Na-Dene languages which to most people mean nothing. I personally like kwami's hybrid suggestion of Yue Chinese (Cantonese). Akerbeltz (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Those examples do not share names with common terms that non-linguists will be looking for. --JWB (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Which IMO is exactly why we should include the common name in the title. We've already decided that this isn't just "Cantonese"; neither is it "Cantonese dialects", because "Cantonese" (per our consensus on naming that article) is just one of the Yue dialects, not all of them. While we could have had this at "Cantonese", we have already decided not to, and no-one is in the mood to reopen that discussion. The tacit, and in some cases overt, agreement was to settle Canton dialect, then come back here and settle this, depending on where Canton dialect ended up. If it had ended up at "Standard Cantonese", say, or "Guangzhou dialect", we could name this article "Cantonese" or "Cantonese dialects". However, it ended up at "Cantonese", which in the interests of clarity and consistency precludes that name for this article. kwami (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, like most words "Cantonese" has multiple connotations depending on context. With no context, the most common connotation is the (standard or common) language. With context, it can be dialects, people, or lobster. Surely this doesn't have to be explained to a linguist? This argument seems disingenuous. But if you are serious, feel free to AfD French dialects and the many similar articles. --JWB (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why the idea naming Yue Chinese has been mentioned again and again. The length and time spent on this nonsensical name has at least been two years, it has been rejected over and over again by many different editors (native or non-native English and native or non-native Cantonese speakers). I start to think if a person (editor) hang around long enough, he or she will eventually got his or her way no matter how nonsensical, offensive and non English to many. Is that the way Wikipedia works? Is this the reason the massive drain of editors happen lately? Aside from this reaction, the issue of renaming should be closed until some interest in merging articles. The reasons? they has been stated many times throughout the previously lengthy debates. Should anyone been interested to find out, I encourage you to read the past debates. There does not seem any new or interesting suggestion at this moment. --WikiCantona (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, everyone can voice their opinions. It doesn't matter if it excessively done or anything and you would know why people came in and complain by now, its because they don't see the title fitting (way to go on so called "it has been rejected over and over again by many different editors", you didn't see the poll right?). Also, I hope you can either help us resolve this Q or stay away, ranting like this which doesn't even contribute anything but add problems.--LLTimes (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Voice your opinion you will. Opinions similar to yours have been voiced many times over - that is the exact reason I encourage you to go through the past debates in which I had my contribution. The Talk:Cantonese page contains very interesting debates too. About the poll, you should also look back to many polls before, it has been rejected many times - why is that only the latest count - the past not. More so, the current result is very mix. Granted the current title is not the best, it has been a best compromise at that moment. There has been suggestions to merge articles (the debate there was very thoughtful and clear) - as I will not repeat here. Should you seek real solution, not reiterate the same problems, you really should read the past debates. Voicing the same opinions is not going to help--WikiCantona (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing much has been rejected. The discussions have been largely inconclusive. What matters is if there is reason behind an argument, not whether any particular editor rejects it. (Which is why polls can only be a guide to discussion, not a deciding factor.) LLTimes has several good reasons behind his argument. True, they've been made before, but they have yet to be resolved. Now that we have decided what "Cantonese" means on Wikipedia (Standard Cantonese/Canton dialect), they need to be brought up again, and to be repeatedly brought up, if need be, until we settle this. kwami (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't impose your own idea on the previous discussion. We agreed that Cantonese means Standard Cantonese as well as dialects found in Gwongdung province while the former meaning is least disputed. The so-called super group (this article) is a linguistic construct - so artificial that many will not take it as such. Therefore, there has been proposal to merge both articles (yet strongly opposed by a few editors). What in your mind the true resolution is to go your way "Yue Chinese" that many have rejects/argue against with good reasons. I admire your persistence - going for this course for 2 years - until you get what you want. Of course for a free society, you can try as much as you want. I like to see is some new perspective and willing to settle the issues. Unfortunately, it has been the same old arguments brought up over and over again. Worst, the agreement in meaning (see Talk:Cantonese) cannot produce acceptable solutions to all. Repeat your own argument over and over, no real solution will be found. --WikiCantona (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The latest should count just as much as past discussions. But if this goes on to Archive 900 then it may become difficult to follow the archives. And for those who does not think "Canton" has ever been associated with 廣東 see Ten Tigers of Canton. They are not called Ten Tigers of Yue. Benjwong (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This straw man again. No-one has ever said that the name Canton is not used for 廣東; just the opposite, we all agree that it is. But we have decided that the entry under "Cantonese" is to be Guangzhou dialect, not Guangdong lects. kwami (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear on the discussion result about Cantonese, the article is mainly about "Guangzhau dialect", the concept Cantonese is applicable loosely to "Guangdong lects". --WikiCantona (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey I have an idea. Why don't we start another RfC on this discussion to discuss the discussion to rename the article? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the main reason to NOT use "Cantonese" in the title name so far? To completely erase that, we have two not very convincing reasons so far. 1.) Another article is also called Cantonese. 2.) ISO codes. Benjwong (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the name as it stands is if someone types "Cantonese" into the search box they see it second, and so might choose it when they really want Cantonese. It probably happens to few people, but more are going to be momentarily confused (unlike cuisine, people it's not clear what "Yue" means), spoiling their experience.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The two reason is enough to change the title IMO. as you see on the poll, a lot of people aren't happy with the current title. Second if you would change the title to "XXX Chinese" then i will gladly accept, I just want the format in. :) --LLTimes (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No to RfC, the title is not being the problem, it is the concept. --WikiCantona (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

More poll

Should we not have a poll on those who participate in the discussion to find out who actually has a decent knowledge of Cantonese or Yue or Guangzhouhua etc, to weed out participants who do not actually know what they are talking about? Think, if I do not know any English (the language), and write only in Chinese, should I make claims (written in Chinese) on what the English language is all about, and pretend to be an expert on English linguistics? 86.181.65.207 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that would be a bad idea for a couple of reasons. First how would you do it? E.g. what precise criteria would you use, that would even come close to evaluating people's expertise.

But even more it goes against the way WP works: editing is not restricted to 'experts' in any field. See e.g. WP:EXPERT, or WP:OWN. And there are people here with many levels of experience: people who speak English and Cantonese but are not trained linguists. Linguists with little knowledge of the language. Cantonese speakers with less than fluent English and English speakers with varying levels of Cantonese. All can and should participate and contribute. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree trying to evaluate participants' expertise would be problematic. However recruiting additional participants with expertise would be good and make the discussion more authoritative. WikiCantona earlier made suggestions of contacting some professors in this area. --JWB (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. Let's have a poll to see whether or not we should have this poll. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But we are not talking about having experts, only people with a decent knowledge of the subject instead of having people with no knowledge. I am sure with so many brains here, a format could be developed for this poll if you all put your heads into it. To start it off, perhaps JohnBlackburne or JWB could give us all an honest evaluation of their own ability in the subject, as they seem to have a lot to say on the subject. 86.181.65.207 (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, because it would take too long, require a lot of personal history that's no-one's business, and is irrelevant. If you want to call into question one of my contributions to this article, or dispute anything I say here, or simply are not swayed by my arguments that's fine. It's how things work here, and such contributions are the only thing that matter. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's called a "walled garden", and is a common argument among nationalists, among others, who feel that only they have the right to write on their country, history, religion, or in this case, language. On WP, walled gardens are not allowed, and such arguments are considered invalid. kwami (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about nationalists or only those nationalists are allowed to write about their country, history religion or their language? Please think of all those English speakers who are not English or of Anglo-Saxon descent such as Africans, Indians and many other people including Chinese people who understand enough English to be able to write and describe it. Anyone is welcome to write about Cantonese in this article and in its discussion, if they have a decent understanding of it. If they do not, perhaps they would restrain from doing so as it creates a lot of confusion and tension in the discussion due to wrongful opinions and does not contribute to the writing of a more accurate or better article. Anyway Mr Kwami, why are you so defensive? Are you one of those people who do not understand Cantonese, but think you can take part in the discussion about Cantonese? As for discussions on for example religion, although a person may not be of that religion, he can readily find out and read about the writings and beliefs of that religion in its original form either by established translations or even in the original language, and be able to partake for that reason. I am for example not a Muslim, but I have some knowledge of this religion, but I do not believe that I can discuss or argue with a true Muslim what Islam is. 86.181.65.207 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If we were considering an article on Standard Cantonese or on a specific dialect, then a good knowledge of that particular variety would be a valuable asset. However this article is about the whole Yue dialect area including obscure marginal dialects, and the interrelationship and evolution of all of them within the greater Chinese language area. It is a historical/comparative linguistics article. My disagreement with kwami is just that we should not consider this to be the primary, obvious definition of "language", but should mark the article as a specialist linguistic article. --JWB (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You've lost me completely; "the whole Yue dialect area including obscure marginal dialects". Which dialect are you calling the singular, and which are you calling the plural? 86.181.65.207 (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Both plural. The Yue dialect area contains many dialects or one or more continua of dialects. --JWB (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is JWB and JohnBlackburne one and the same person? 86.181.65.207 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No. That would be sock puppetry, accusations of which are taken very seriously, so do not make them without good reason. Instead take some time to consider why so many editors here disagree with you. It may just be that your particular views are held only by you, so you have little hope of convincing us to do what you want.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It was just a straight forward question JWB, JohnBlackburne, similar initials, apparently from a similar part of the UK, and I think at one time even linked to the same user page. I think you should follow your own advice and take some time to consider why so many people disagree with you. (Clue, your lack of knowledge on the subject soaks through in the discussion). 86.181.65.207 (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anyone else supporting your "competency to edit" (or whatever) poll, i.e. disagreeing with me.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So why was the talk page of JWB and JohnBlackburne one and the same at one time? Was it because of technical problems at Wikipedia? 86.178.224.30 (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? There is little we have in common except we both respect and understand WPs way of working, which includes no qualifications needed. The only time our talk pages were the same was when they were blank, but that is true of any talk page at some time.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What I am talking about is that at one time clicking on a JWB talk page link led to the JohnBlackburne talk page (it could have been vice versa). Was this due to a technical fault at Wikipedia or was it due to some carelessness on the part of the JWB/JohnBlackburne twins in the hiding of their identity when setting up their talk pages? The initials of JWB gives the game away. 86.178.226.61 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would guess user error, i.e. you confused our names as you seem to be doing now and so clicked on one thing expecting another. Certainly my sig has never led to anyone else's pages or contributions, except indirectly. But all of WP is logged & cached so if you can remember the page and when it was you should be able to provide a link, otherwise it's just your vague memory of a problem no-one else has reported.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

John, since you're just my sock puppet, could you stop voting against me on AfDs? Thanks. --JWB (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that would give the game away that we are one and the same ! We have to disagree somewhere, otherwise the undisputed facts that we have similar looking initials and have posted on the same talk page means we must be sockpuppets. That we have completely different interests, contribution records, and are arguing even now is irrelevant. An anonymous IP who doesn't understand WP thinks we are the same person so it must be true (and I should probably stop talking to myself right now).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes you should. Nice play anyway. 86.182.34.13 (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To take up on Blackburne's classification: "And there are people here with many levels of experience: people who speak English and Cantonese but are not trained linguists. Linguists with little knowledge of the language. Cantonese speakers with less than fluent English and English speakers with varying levels of Cantonese. All can and should participate and contribute." I should hope a linguist with little knowledge of the language will have the professionalism of restraining from actively participating in this type of discussion. This is the same as a botanist (a subset of biologist, who is in turn a subset of scientist) not participating in the discussion of nuclear physics with a group of nuclear physicists (who are also a subset of scientists) because of the lack of knowledge of one group of scientist (the botanist) in another branch of science (nuclear physics). As with English speakers with varying levels of Cantonese, it is the English speakers with negligible amount of Cantonese who would not be able to contribute accurately, and should have the decency to refrain from doing so. English speakers with advance Cantonese can and should contribute their knowledge on the subject. 86.181.65.207 (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But it's not a single language or dialect, but a group of them. Cantonese one of them and has its own article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct. It is not a single language, despite certain contributor's claim in the past (guess who) that there is a language (singular) called Yue. If one is not even able to have a decent knowledge in one of these languages (such as Guangzhouhua), then how can one claim to be fit to contribute to the whole of this family of languages? If I knew only English, could I contribute competently to articles on the Germanic languages? And if I don't even know English then it is even more spurious if I claimed to be able to contribute competent articles on Germanic languages. Of course "linguists" claim this can be done, and that you do not need to know a language itself in order to establish the linguistics of that language or its language family, but that it often helps the linguistics study if you actually know the language. However what is in theory possible is often not possible in practice. 86.181.65.207 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

86, I would say that reading your comments one would actually get the impression that it's you, not John Blackburne or kwami, who has a shaky background in linguists. And before you start, I have all the street cred I need being both a native speaker and a linguist. So, how about we get back to the topic? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What you're talking about, 86, are credentials for doing original research. But we don't do original research on WP. We classify Yue/Cantonese as a language because, guess what? our sources (or some of them) classify it as a language. It even has an ISO code as a language. If I wanted to argue that "American" was a language, you wouldn't need to know English to dispute that, you'd only need to be able to evaluate the sources that I claim support me. kwami (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It is implied in the compilation of an encyclopedia that credible and incredible claims/ sources be sifted. Simply by passing the buck and say we classify because of our source, is not good enough. 86.177.123.167 (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Being able to read relevant Chinese-language sources and translate Chinese Wikipedia articles would be helpful, though. Of course reading ability does not have anything to do with knowledge of a particular spoken variety. --JWB (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Good we are getting somewhere. Let's add the level of ability to speak, listen, read and write from the contributors. 86.177.123.167 (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

True, for expanding or verifying the content of the article, though what we call it in Chinese more or less irrelevant to what we call it in English. kwami (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr Kwami, that is your personal opinion. I as a native speaker of English would like to know whether we are using loan words to the English language correctly. 86.177.123.167 (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are objecting to wikipedia policy. You're advocating a walled garden, which is not acceptable. No-one would accept that only people who speak Macedonian should be able to edit articles on Macedonia, for example, or that only Muslims should edit articles on Islam: in fact, people have advocated just those things, and been universally condemned for it. Cantonese is no exception.

Chinese loan words in English are used correctly according to how they're used in English, not according to how they're used in Chinese. We're not debating what they mean in Chinese. "Yue" is an established English name to distinguish Guangdonghua from Guangzhouhua. QED. By your argument, we should abolish the words "China" and "Chinese", because they mean (of) the Qín Dynasty, not Zhongguo(hua). Not going to happen. kwami (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Again Mr Kwami, that is your own opinion and not mine. You are abusing Wiki, and attempting to hide behind what you perceive to be its policy. An article on Macedonian should be left to those who know Macedonian. Being able to speak Macedonian would count as a part of knowing Macedonian. I would never attempt to edit an article on Macedonian. I might ask questions about it because of my lack of understanding of the subject, but I would leave the editting to people who know the answers to any questions I may have. Again, when it comes to religion, if you have a knowledge of the religion in question, you may of course discuss and contribute. But if you do not have a decent knowledge of the religion in question, then you are agruing for the sake of arguing and are just being adversarial rather than to improve on the article. I have not called for the abolition of the word "China" which is an exonym because such a word is approved by the Chinese people. However again the use of the exonym word "China" is often abused by people outside of China to say it does not include certain areas of the present day People's Republic of China. As for the word "Yue", its use as an exonym for the language or languages of Guangdong or Guangzhou is not agreed upon by the people of Guangdong or that of China. Once again people who do not know any Cantonese languages should have the respect not to add their views on the article. 86.177.123.167 (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Akerbeltz, please explain your above comment. What do you mean by street cred? If you are a native speaker and a linguist, then you are of course able to contribute to an advance level here. Could Blackburne, JWB and Kwami please similarly clarify their levels of ability like Akerbeltz has done. 86.181.65.207 (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

[5] --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

86, Wikipedia works the way kwami described. If you don't like it, you're free to set up your own pedia where you can vet editors yourself but with all due respect, you're just wasting people's time here. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No Akerbeltz, Wikipedia is abused the way Kwami described. I am not wasting people's time, I am saving people's time. Examine the archive and look at all the time wasted so far just because Wiki has been abused. Was this time wasting because of me or some other? Let's face it, the wasted time spent hasn't got the article very far. You are the one who mentioned vetting, not I. I say a poll is needed where contributors can honestly state what ability they have in relation to what they claim, so that readers can judge for themselves what is credible and what is not. If you have nothing to hide when it comes to ability, what have you to fear?86.177.123.167 (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to do it yourself. Citizendium does the sort of vetting you want, I think. Unsurprisingly it has far fewer contributors and articles than here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am not the one who used the term vetting. If you really have the ability and knowledge in the subject matter, what have you to fear? 86.177.123.167 (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm not exactly awe inspiring, describing Cherokee as having an alphabet... but there you go. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't you speak English? If you were expected to establish your bona fides on Wikipedia, that would be vetting. Sorry but I have better things to do - until you can come up with something sensible 86, I'm going to ignore your threads. Akerbeltz (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do. I am glad you have better things to do. According to your user page, your linguistics speciality is Gaelic linguistics, not Chinese linguistics. For you, it would be like asking a dental surgeon to carry out brain surgery. You ignore my threads because you have lost the argument. 86.177.123.167 (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please email us a photocopy of your degree in Chinese linguistics, along with your birth certificate proving that you are a native English speaker. Then we'll see about your attempt to vet other editors, and to set up a walled garden around Cantonese articles, both of which violate Wikipedia policy. kwami (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr Kwami, where would you like them emailed to? I have not attempted to vet other editors. Indeed, I do not edit the article, as if you have not noticed, it is locked (probably by you). Neither have I attempted to set up a "walled garden". The term vetting was used by someone else, not me; and walled garden came from you. Blackburne had come up with a list of abilities, which I have expanded on, and it has not received any objections- not even from yourself. Mr Kwami, you are abusing Wikipedia. Nowhere in Wikipedia's policy states it is acceptable to break national laws, nor does Wikipedia encourage people to break national laws. All civilized nations have laws to protect their people from fraud, passing off, and false representation. Mr Kwami, you have consistently passed yourself off in your conduct as someone who knows Cantonese, when you obviously do not. Mr Kwami, you are breaking the laws of all civilized nations, and by proxy the rules of conduct in Wikipedia. Mr Kwami, please stop your abuse of Wikipedia, it has gone on for too long. 86.183.80.251 (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually want your qualifications, I was merely making a point about demanding qualifications of others.

"Nowhere in Wikipedia's policy states it is acceptable to break national laws" — what are you talking about? Are you guilty of fraud because your legal name is not "86.183.80.251"? I'm sorry, but you're starting to sound disconnected from reality.

Where did I ever say I speak Cantonese?

We decide things based on the literature. If you can support your argument from the lit, please do so. Otherwise this is a complete waste of time. kwami (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr Kwami, I did not demand qualification of others. I suggested a poll where editors (like your good self) honestly state what their knowledge of the subject matter is, so that readers can judge for themselves what is credible and what is not. No I am not saying I am guilty of fraud because my legal name is not 86.183.80.251, indeed no court on this earth will regard 86.183.80.251 as a legal name. Correct, Mr Kwami, you have not stated anywhere that you speak Cantonese. However, you have conducted yourself here as if you are competent in Cantonese and variations of, which is deception. In English law, it is not necessary to prove an intention to deceive, innocent passing off is actionable. If I may be so bold as to say that not only do you not speak Cantonese of any type, you also cannot understand spoken Cantonese by listening, nor can you read or write any form of Chinese. Indeed you are in no way competent in editting this article, and it shows in the number of times you changed its title unilaterally, and preventing others from editting it. You are treating this article as your own personal playground. Please Mr Kwami, have some respect for Wikipedia and stop abusing it the way you have done for the past several years. 86.178.224.30 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Though I'm mildly amused at this stage - the last post by 86 sounds like a party mouthpiece by the Party stating that the judiciary in China is independent and above reproach and any criticism is meddling in China's internal affairs. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back Akerbeltz. I don't know why you bring politics into this. The only party mouthpiece I hear here is from Mr Kwami and you: ie Kwami, Wiki policy is this and this; then Akerbeltz, yes that's how Wiki works, if you don't like it start your own pedia. Well, are you saying China should meddle in other country's affairs, and start to send armies into other countries, just like the good USA? 86.178.224.30 (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What is Expert? The people who have the highest Cantonese skills usually don't speak a word of Mandarin or English. These people are old, they do toishanese as a secondary dialect. They would never appear here in en.wiki. Even new young PRC Cantonese people today go straight to the Beifang model, aka mandarin only. There is no expert left. Benjwong (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Cantonese is taught at universities in Hong Kong, US, Canada, and Australia. The professors and instructors who are teaching these courses are professional scholars. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice how you don't mention China. Anyhow I don't buy this is a "spreading" dialect. Benjwong (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What? I'm not commenting on whether or not Cantonese is a "spreading" dialect. I'm just saying there are definitely experts in Cantonese studies. You seem to think the only Cantonese "experts" are old Taishanese people. Look, your personal experience of being Chinese in the US doesn't exactly represent what's going on in Asia or the rest of the world. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Which comment suggests I am speaking on behalf of all chinese people through my personal experience in the US? I think you misunderstood. My definition of expert is not anyone who teaches the dialect. If I teach english to junior students, I am still not expert. Benjwong (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• The reason kwami says more than me is that he's apparently got way more patience with fools that I have, so on this occasion I just back him up, well spotted. Over and out, find someone else to annoy. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Akerbeltz, you have fools? 86.178.224.30 (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Okay, the request has been closed for weeks, with no significant additional points to consider, and no other admin has moved on this: it's still common name (problematically already used as a consensus name for a related article) + walled garden (English speakers shouldn't decide on what to call the language in English) vs. technical name, Chinese naming conventions, and WP dab conventions. Plus (unfortunately IMO) little desire for compromise wording. I'll make the move. kwami (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

• I dispute the claims made in the article about the evolution and development of Cantonese/ Yue and in particular the Chinese spoken language(s). "Middle Chinese" is a theoretical language. I have not come across any convincing evidence that support any claim that at any one point in time in history, the Han people all spoke one uniform tongue. Looking at the language history of the Anglo-Saxons in a small place called England, it is clear that even within a small geographic area that was in effect the nation(s) of one people, several tongues were spoken simultaneously. It is more likely that the Han people always had many different diverse spoken tongues, as is the case now, and that was why the Han character script was required as the quickest means of written communication between the Han people. 86.181.65.207 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, scholarly consensus is that the Qieyun represented not a single dialect, but sound distinctions found in multiple dialects. --JWB (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kwami unilaterally moving page, again.

• Without any sign of consensus, Kwami moved the page to "Yue Chinese" suddenly today. I have raised a concern about this constant abuse by User Kwami at the Cantonese page at the Administrator's Noticeboard. Colipon+(Talk) 19:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• It's better to leave as it is, Yue Chinese fit better as the Status quo.--LLTimes (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• This is getting very annoying. User:Kwami with admin power wants to move and has moved this page to "Yue Chinese" many times over past couple years. Editors has spoken with reasons and civility in the past and present against the name. This unilateral move has ignored and dis-respect the community. More importantly, the Yue Chinese does not fit the Status quo - sorry - it only fits a few users idea of the universe. And please note, I have been contributing the debate in the past. I don't want to repeat myself and many points put forward. Please give the information on how to complain the abuse of admin power. I would like to file one. --WikiCantona (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Move

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: moved to Yue Chinese. Although it may look like this RM was closed only 30 hours after it was opened, the discussion has in fact been going on for months. I've read through the previous discussions and come to the following conclusions: (1) Using the word "Cantonese" in this article's title is misleading, because Cantonese is only a subset of the language this article is about. (2) I have been unable to find a single cogent argument against the title "Yue Chinese", which is the title expected by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Language/dialect NPOV and the name used by Ethnologue and generally by linguists. (3) The fact that the article on Hakka is called Hakka (language) rather than Hakka Chinese is irrelevant: just because another article has a malformed name doesn't mean this article should have one too. (4) The fact that most English-speaking nonlinguists don't know the difference between the Cantonese dialect of Yue and Yue as a whole is also irrelevant: most English-speakers don't know the difference between Holland and the Netherlands either, but there again we use the accurate name for the country, not the most common one since that refers only to a subset of it. +Angr 11:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC) +Angr 11:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Cantonese (Yue) → Yue Chinese — Kwamikagami 04:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Time to move to a permanent name. The RfD closed weeks ago, with little added to the previous months of discussion: Yue Chinese is the only real contender, other than staying at the current inappropriate name, which was supposed to be temporary until we could agree on where to put Cantonese. kwami (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose this was previously rejected, yet Kwami keeps choosing it. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The most popular proposal was "rejected"? This is the quality of argument for stonewalling. kwami (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• support Rejected? No, see here, where "Yue Chinese" was the most popular choice. Why to move? All these have been covered before but it's worth restating them.

1. The current name was suggested as a compromise when it was not clear whether this was about "Cantonese" or "Yue". As we now have a Cantonese article that ambiguity has been resolved to I think most people's satisfaction.
2. The current name is a problem for users typing the name in the search box: if they type "Cantone..." they confusingly see Cantonese first and Cantonese (Yue) second.
3. It is not about Cantonese. That article is here.
4. Consistency with other Chinese varieties: Wu Chinese, Min Chinese, Mandarin Chinese etc..

I.e. there's a strong argument that it should be named something other than "Cantonese xxx". What that other name should it seems hard to reach a consensus on, but the most popular alternative is "Yue Chinese"--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The "X Chinese" formula has never been agreed upon in any consensus. It was merely Kwami's own doing. Most of those names (other than "Mandarin Chinese") are artificial Wikipedia-kwami constructs to satisfy an inaccurate but pedantic hierarchal structure. "Min Chinese", for example, is used neither by linguists, nor by speakers, nor by outsiders. (Except Ethnologue, which divides it into parts like "Southern Min Chinese", which is not used anywhere else.) Colipon+(Talk) 17:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Since January, I have deliberately shut myself out of this discussion for two reasons. 1. I got tired of the abuse and the personal swipes coming out of User Kwami each time I made a comment; 2. I wanted to watch the discussion from the sidelines to see if anyone could come up with any new substantive arguments. Sad to say, this hasn't happened. I firmly believe that most parties involved in this discussion are reasonable, rational folk, who would like to see Wikipedia serve the best interest of its readers. To that end, I am a bit sad that this debate has gone on in circles for the past two years and still have not reached a conclusion. I do not want to re-hash the same tired arguments against this page move to "Yue Chinese"; it has been opposed by many users - involved and non-involved, anonymous and veteran, native speakers and curious learners - suddenly springing up another page move proposal just to get to an end is bound to fail.

Today, I merely want to deal with the technicality that we now rely on to justify this particular move to "Yue Chinese". Kwami characterizes "Cantonese (Yue)" as a 'temporary name'. This is most certainly not the case when we first decided to move the article to this name. The "temporary" nature of the name is mere interpretation, not a fact backed up by evidence from previous discussion. This problem will not be solved unless we review the entire naming convention system of Chinese languages - a gargantuan task, but seeing how this discussion has been going on for two years, it doesn't seem too bad. There are so many sides to this conflict that believing the issue can be solved by a simple rearranging of names is absurd. A third party administrator, or a non-involved user specializing in Linguistic articles should review all arguments presented, summarize it in an impartial manner, and help move the discussion along. I endorse the status quo as a good compromise; it is not the best name for an article, but it is much, much better than "Yue Chinese". Colipon+(Talk) 17:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Search instead for "Min Language" and you'll see that is widely used, but is unacceptable here for POV reasons. Just "Min" would be confusing: try typing it into the search box. So "Min Chinese". "Yue" has the same concerns: used on its own it would be confusing, and appending language or dialects would be too contentious. And I do not see why you are characterising this as being all down to one editor: "Yue Chinese" was the most supported name in a recent poll, so there is certainly no consensus against a move.

The current name was a compromise, proposed when there was a disagreement over whether "Cantonese" should apply to the dialect group as a whole or the prestige dialect. That has since been resolved, so the compromise should be revisited: in that sense the current name is a temporary fix, not a good name for an article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind using "Min Language" at all. Or "Cantonese Language". But there are a lot of people against that idea. "Min Chinese" is just non-sensical. That's why I suggested that we need to overhaul the entire system to get to the root of the problem. If anything came out of that poll above - its that there are widely diverging views, each with its own merits and flaws. Support for "Yue Chinese" wasn't even a majority. Colipon+(Talk) 18:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I myself would not mind "language" or "languages" but there's a policy that disallows it, for very good reasons. The same policy suggests "xxx Chinese" to resolve ambiguity.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We obviously didn't care to follow through on that., unless someone complained. Colipon+(Talk) 20:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose That whole consistency with other "dialect name" discussion is really not necessary. Min Chinese is even worse of a name. Will the same people suggest "English latin", "French latin", "Italian latin"? I hope not. Benjwong (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting that. We have English language, French language, &c, but we cannot use "Min language", or "Yue language", for language POV reasons. There is clearly a need to change the name as it's now easily confused with Cantonese, and "Yue Chinese" was most supported in recent discussions.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I would ask User:Kwamikagami to please quit making any more move proposals to push his agenda, in the hope that your actions will succeed through sheer tenacity, bullying or by inflicting fatigue or boredom onto fellow editors. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking that the majority view, and the one with rational argument behind it, be respected, and that we finally finish the job that was started when this temporary name was set up by straw poll to clear the way for Cantonese to be moved by consensus. Of course I won't stop until that job is done, any more than you would if I asked that you stop trying to push your agenda thru sheer tenacity etc. kwami (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea, yea, yea. YOu showed your true colours with that last move, and your credibility is now in tatters. As Colipon said above, the current namespace is a COMPROMISE - nobody actually wanted it, but it was chosen in a consensual manner not as the best, but as the least bad option. It would be disingenuous to sell it now as a "temporary home" for the article. It should be the 'final resting place' until a suitable consensus is reached to move it in no less than three months down the line. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Another three months?? Since when do you dictate such things? I agreed to another month, and now you want another three. After that you'll want still more. There's been plenty of time. And the agreement with the current name, when we had the straw poll, was that we would come back to it after Cantonese was decided on. That was done, so it's time to come back and finish the job. We moved it here with the understanding that it would be temporary, and no obfuscation on your part, or more attempts at delay, will change that. It's time to move. The only name with significant support is "Yue Chinese". Therefore we move to Yue Chinese. After that, if you wish to suggest a new name, we can start a new discussion.

<sarcasm>Oh, I forgot to thank you for ever so kindly agreeing to not changing the article name within one month - how very ungrateful of me for spitting on your generosity.</sarcasm> FYI, three months appears to be the commonly accepted duration after which consensus is capable of evolving, and not before. I think this definition is rather useful, and prevents tactics like the ones you employ to beat others over the head continuously. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Last time you said that one more month was a reasonable time. It's now been four altogether, so even by your newly proposed standard, it's time to move on.

You haven't said anything new in months, so there's not much point in debating with you any further. This arguing makes both of us look silly. I'm stopping now. kwami (talk) 09:36, 29 March 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.

rm. POV

I removed the following from the Name section, as IMO it violates NPOV:

though this [the name in HK] is ambiguous as it implies that other languages or dialects in Guangdong such as Hakka and Teochew (which are not Yue) are included, and that the Yue spoken in Guangxi is not included.

Most names are ambiguous if taken literally. French isn't the only language in France and isn't restricted to France, but is the language associated with France. Likewise, Yue is the language associated with Gwangdong; thus the synonym 'Cantonese' in English. I think it is inappropriate to imply that HKers are wrong in what they call their own language. kwami (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Move request was closed too hastily

Judge for yourselves whether this is just. I can't believe where this has gone. Absolutely ridiculous. Colipon+(Talk) 15:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, I was told to ask an uninvolved admin to intervene. I asked an uninvolved admin, and he intervened. Now the rules have changed again? And four months is "too hasty". *Sigh* kwami (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"ridiculous" ? As well as the four reasons given by the closing admin there's the previous poll that voted for "Yue Chinese", and what article should be called "Cantonese" has been resolved so the compromise is no longer necessary. As far as I can tell there were no reasons to keep the name as "Cantonese (Yue)" - certainly you've not given one that I can see.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing is totally disingenuous. When was the last time you saw so many opposes in a page move and the article move request getting closed in about 36 hours, and the page ended up getting moved anyway? Plus, if you read Kwami's 'request' on Angr's userpage - you will see he skews the entire situation. Contrary to what Kwami claims, "Yue Chinese" never received widespread support. And contrary to what kwami claims, "Cantonese (Yue)" was not a "temporary name". That was never part of the discussion when this page was moved from Cantonese (linguistics) to "Cantonese (Yue)". Normally someone who has abused a single topical area so much would be topic banned by now, but because kwami, due to his shining halo of being an administrator, can get his way. He also put forth three arguments against "Yue Chinese" on Angr's page, none of which were actually the major reasons (read it to see for yourself). Also, he told Angr that this page sums up the archive of discussions on this issue - but really there has been much more comprehensive argumentation in previous archives - something I believe User Angr overlooked (albeit in good faith) when he made the move. Colipon+(Talk) 20:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yue Chinese did get many support (see the poll on top) and equivalent to numbers of those who support Cantonese (Yue), also there are good reasons why this page should be name Yue Chinese and I failed to see any good reasons for Cantonese (Yue) except for a few members here, hijacking the article's name, prevent any resolutions while stating that they are tired to debate and suggesting that we should wait for a few months.--LLTimes (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Google Search results

Let's confuse our readers even more - let's see what we can find on google for "Yue Chinese": [6] [7] [8] [9]. This creates a very obvious problem. "Yue Chinese" is a wikipedia construct - it fits the pedantic rules that Kwami has imposed on Chinese languages but it is of no practical use. No one knows what "Yue Chinese" is, and after reading this article, people will be even more confused. Colipon+(Talk) 20:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yue Chinese was a temporary name. There appears to be very little to no agreement in the last two discussions. Even less than last time. Why is this moved? The goal was to come up with a common name that can be agreed on. If it takes a long time here is because it takes a long time in real life too. Benjwong (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Typical case of Wikipedia serving the rules of its editors and not the interest of its readers. Colipon+(Talk) 03:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)