Talk:Chinese language in the United States

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

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

China

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

On 31 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be

Chinese languages in the United States. The result of the discussion

was moved.

Non sequitur

At the end of the lede: "Despite being called dialects or varieties, Cantonese, Taishanese, and Mandarin etc. are not mutually intelligible. When asked census forms and surveys, respondents will only answer with 'Chinese'." The 2nd sentence reads as a non sequitur. It's also poorly worded. I'm not sure what meaning is meant to be conveyed. Maybe someone can fix this? MainePatriot (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took a crack at it! This actually is a decent segue into a standing question of mine. Snarkticfox (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Contemporary Refresh?

The most recent source here is from 2009, and while the article cites ongoing change in New York, there is no attestation as to if Mandarin has supplanted or made inroads in the years since. Would love a subject matter expert to weigh in or point me in the right direction! Snarkticfox (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved to Chinese language in the United States. BD2412 T 00:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC) BD2412 T 00:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese language and varieties in the United States → Chinese languages in the United States – I understand why both "language" and "varieties" are offered in the title, but it's redundant and imperfect any way you slice it: I see "languages" as the best compromise between "language", "varieties", etc. Remsense诉 09:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

support per nom—blindlynx —blindlynx 23:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Typically, "variety" is seen as the neutral alternative to the more analysis-laden terms "language" and "dialect". So why not Varieties of Chinese in the United States? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a slight connotation that the focus of the article would be comparing between varieties rather than giving a holistic overview, which is the one minor issue in my mind with general usage of the term "variety". I wish "lect" seemed like a common enough word to use in these situations, that would be my ideal pick.Remsense 诉 16:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Languages has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not crazy about the plural 'Chinese languages' in this context, which to me seems to risk misrepresenting the relationships among Cantonese/Mandarin/Hokkien etc. (Amis, Yugar, etc. are arguably 'Chinese languages', but probably not what most people have in mind when they use the phrase.) How about just 'Chinese language in the United States', with something like 'Varieties of Chinese language, mostly Cantonese, are...' in the article's lead section? Cnilep (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese language in the United States is pretty ideal and now my preference, thank you! Remsense诉 04:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Some varieties in the Chinese language are just varieties, not language. For example, there are
Lan–Yin Mandarin, and Southwestern Mandarin. Moreover, the word "languages" in "Chinese languages" is truly confusing. Cfls (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you have concerns that "language and varieties" may be similarly confusing? Remsense诉 23:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject China and WikiProject United States have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Chinese language in the United States (singular) per nom. NasssaNser 09:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
concise, I believe this will be an improvement. ASUKITE 15:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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.