Requests for new languages/Wikisource Literary Chinese

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
submitted verification final decision

Discuss the creation of this language project on this page. Votes will be ignored when judging the proposal. Please provide arguments or reasons and be prepared to defend them (see the Language proposal policy).

The language committee needs to verify the language is eligible to be approved.

  • Check that the project does not already exist (see list).
  • Obtain an ISO 639 code
  • Ensure the requested language is sufficiently unique that it could not exist on a more general wiki.
  • Ensure that there are a sufficient number of native editors of that language to merit an edition in that language.

    This proposal is on hold:

    Please see, and read very carefully, my closing comment below, as well as what follows it. For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The community needs to develop an active test project; it must remain active until approval (automated statistics). It is generally considered active if the analysis lists at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months.
  • The community needs to complete required MediaWiki interface translations in that language (about localization, translatewiki, check completion).
  • The community needs to discuss and complete the settings table below:
What Value Example / Explanation
Language code lzh (SILGlottolog) A valid ISO 639-1 or 639-3 language code, like "fr", "de", "nso", ...
Language name Literary Chinese Language name in English
Language name 文言 Language name in your language. This will appear in the language list on Special:Preferences, in the interwiki sidebar on other wikis, ...
Language Wikidata item Q37041 - item has currently the following values:
Item about the language at Wikidata. It would normally include the Wikimedia language code, name of the language, etc. Please complete at Wikidata if needed.
Directionality Vertical, RTL per lines Is the language written from left to right (LTR) or from right to left (RTL)?
Links Requests for new languages/Wikisource Classical Chinese Links to previous requests, or references to external websites or documents.

Project name 維基石閣 "Wikisource" in your language
Project namespace 維基石閣 usually the same as the project name
Project talk namespace 維基石閣討論 "Wikisource talk" (the discussion namespace of the project namespace)
Enable uploads no Default is "no". Preferably, files should be uploaded to Commons.
If you want, you can enable local file uploading, either by any user ("yes") or by administrators only ("admin").
Notes: (1) This setting can be changed afterwards. The setting can only be "yes" or "admin" at approval if the test creates an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) first. (2) Files on Commons can be used on all Wikis. (3) Uploading fair-use images is not allowed on Commons (more info). (4) Localisation to your language may be insufficient on Commons.
Optional settings
Project logo This needs to be an SVG image (instructions for logo creation).
Default project timezone Asia/Taipei "Continent/City", e.g. "Europe/Brussels" or "America/Mexico City" (see list of valid timezones)
Additional namespaces For example, a Wikisource would need "Page", "Page talk", "Index", "Index talk", "Author", "Author talk".
Additional settings Anything else that should be set
submit Phabricator task. It will include everything automatically, except additional namespaces/settings. After creating the task, add a link to the comment.

Jump to current discussion


Actually, the idea to have lzh edition of Wikisource was rejected years ago, but a recent discussion on Mul.Wikisource started contesting to that past decision by @Bobo alcazar:. One lzhwiki user think that it's unfair to combine lzh contents with zhwikisource, and they want to split them. For these reasons I start this community-wide discussion, to collect that if such splitting is community acceptable or not. Please note: I do not have a position in this question, and if this second request should also be rejected, @StevenJ81:, you may speedy veto any future chances of it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I must be going to take part in this discussion.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


      • Attention:Please read Evidence carefully before taking parts in discussion and saying anything.
@Gzdavidwong, Hat600, Jusjih, Shizhao, and Zhxy 519:@Hideokun, Kzhr, Sakoppi, and Vigorous action:@Salamander724 and Sotiale:@Mxn, ThiênĐế98, Tuanminh01, and Vinhtantran: per above. —— 02:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@大天王皇子, Millosh, Itsmine, Sl, and John Vandenberg:@RekishiEJ: that joined last request page. -- 03:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
for me, it's nearly impossible to make a clear division between modern Chinese and classical Chinese. the division should make sure that every single Chinese work falls into one but only one wiki, not both, not neither. --DS-fax 09:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But...maybe you should learn the difference between Literature and Old Chinese. By the way,"classical Chinese" is not a good translation,it was affected by "Classical Latin",in fact,tjey are different. Modern Chinese and Literature Chinese is exactly two languagew that don't have many in common besides they are both written by Chinese Character.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not difficult to distinguish Literature Chinese and Mandarin Chinese.The language which modern Chinese use it as standard language is Mandarin Chinese(Modern Chinese). And the language that after about 500 BC and be different from the spoken Chinese is Literature Chinese. Except them, others are Ancient Chinese.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 06:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
这些文献都在中文维基文库的收录范围,看不出为何还要新建一个lzh,再重新收录一遍?--Shizhao (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our attitude denpendens on truth and Wiki's rule ,not status quo. And this is a discussion about if Literature Chinese should be parted from (Mandarin) Chinese, not what's the status quo. We can see Yue Chinese and other language in Chinese Languages are parted. As the rule ,it should be parted.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see a few reasons for a separate lzh wiki: 1. The working language(including template information and all that) for Chinese Wikisource is Chinese, so it would be difficult for non-Chinese user to edit/read/input lzh documents into wikisource without knowing Chinese. 2. In the current setup, some lzh documents are copied onto wikisource of other languages as a section there or exists in other languages wikisource but not zh wikisource despite I think some lzh document from Japan or other countries have already been relocated onto zh wikisource. It would be more managable and easier to search if they are put on a single lzh wikisource and then link/embed them from their modern language translatled edition in each East Asian language version wikisource instead. C933103 (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
北寧歷朝大科碑記 竹書紀年 They're also pure Literature Chinese in other language program. --[[User:Bobo alcazar|Bobo alcazar] (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Literature Chinese is Literature Chinese, not any others. (Kanbun,侯文 is also lzh.) But they exist in many languages(especially (Mandarin)Chinese).It turned out that the status quo is unreasonable.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
so your proposal should contain changing Chinese wikisource into so-called mandarin Chinese wikisource or so-called written vernacular Chinese wikisource. --DS-fax 09:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not my proposal. It's truth. As far as you know, Hakka Chinese and some others in the Chinese Languages also have their single Sources.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be pretty clear what is lzh and what is not. Anything that are influenced by the written vernacular chinese movement or have an intention to reflect the vernacular chinese structure are zh. While anything that doesn't read like it are lzh. If anything the border between zh and lzh would probably be clearer than the border between e.g. zh(cmn) and yue where people do code switch between them pretty frequently when writing them. C933103 (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
tell me where s:zh:西遊記/第001回 falls into. --DS-fax 08:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tell youbthe truth,in China, even pupil know 西遊記 is written in so-called Chinese...They will meet the"problem" when they take their test. It's exactly Mandarin Chinese(old), I think you should learn more about the Chinese language first... --Bobo alcazar (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not answering to you anymore, because you always suggest that i have less knowledge about chinese languages than you. --DS-fax 05:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's Old Mandarin. There are expression from and influenced by lzh but you would not be able to analyze and translate the text as if it is written as literary chinese. C933103 (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
so you mean the 'poem' part, which seems to be more than 30%, is also Old Mandarin? or you'd like to split them into two wikis? --DS-fax 05:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should know that it's a custom in Mandarin(Mingdynesty to Qing) fiction to add poems into. Some of them were came out with the auyhor, and some are quote. So ,in your opinion, a English work which include some other language sentence is not an English work?--Bobo alcazar (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the poem part is justa kind of ornament.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
it's YOU who needs to answer it. as far as i know, whatever the language is, there is very few work that contains another language at a considerable ratio. moreover, many poems from this kind of works, such as the preface poem of 三國演義, is often considered as a stand-alone work. will the proposed lzh-wikisource include these? --DS-fax 10:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For your first question,it's about pragmatics,but there's no reason to judge by it. For your second question, it's about the scope of inclusion, I am thinking about it, but it's also not necessary to talk here. I will announce and talk it in lzh Wikisource after the setting. And if there's no more quality question, I think the communication can be passed.@Liuxinyu970226: --Bobo alcazar (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The phenomenon is known as Code-switching. This is in no way exclusive to Chinese or LZH. If someone put a number of English poem inside a Chinese article, do you think it would make the article no longer belongs to Chinese Wikisource? If you see a Japanese article that quoted tons of LZH poem, do you think it would suddenly become Chinese and put them into Chinese wikisource, if without a LZH wiki? C933103 (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Literary Chinese content should be created within Chinese Wikisource. --Agusbou2015 (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Agusbou2015: Why I support separating the lzh one and the zh one is that, as the Chinese culture is compeletly different from the western culture hence sometimes it is difficult to picture the structure of the Chinese language. This circumstance is more likely to coincide with the theory of antinomy. It is more similar to the phenomenon of the separation of literary language and oral language (文白分离). In Chinese, literary language and oral language have been differed completely since thousands of years ago, whilst people insist on using the literary language when making formal compositions but talk by the oral language. These two languages not only differed on their grammar, but also their pronunciations, which is still reserved and widespread today. Chinese characters, however, could display both of these two languages as well as made it possible to develop the modern Chinese language system. As the Literary Chinese sometimes requires a higher standard and the sufficient ability of the author, nowadays people seldom use it. Therefore, in consideration of the convenience and academic demand, the mixture of the two languages (present Chinese Wikisource) must divide into two parts. It is not a revolution. It is a revision. --夕沈弦人 (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with it. It's clear that They are different languages which should be Separated as @Bobo alcazar: said.--240E:BA:D08A:C0D3:CDF9:8E1B:D62C:DED2 14:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with the submission. And I have submited my evidence.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Literary Chinese has to be translated before demonstrating to the readers within a native environment of Modern Mandarin Chinese. --夕沈弦人 (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you can see the picture below. These 14 languages are equal. Why those four languages can but lzh can not? I's unreasonable! And besides, Why lzh should be incorporated into Mandarin Chinese not others? That's also unreasonable! And now the status quo is lzh work is included in Mandarin Chinese Wikisource,Japanese Wikisource and so on, and then why should be just included by Mandarin Chinese? That's unreasonable! The only right way is to set up Literature Chinese Wikisource!--Bobo alcazar (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (因为英语表达可能有点问题,所以我同时放上中英文对照/ Because the English expression may be a bit problematic, I put both Chinese and English at the same time):


再说一句无关的,请求者可能在滥用傀儡扰乱,“Bobo alcazar”、“夕沉弦人”和那个IPv6地址应该是同一个人。综上,十分反对成立该项目。另外,这么快将之标记为“合格”实在是操之过急。

There is nothing to say about this stuff. What is the scope of the first division? Second, how do you move if you want to migrate from the Chinese Wikisource? Then, I think the following "reasons" are hard to establish:
The current Chinese Wikisource has the vast majority of things that need to be migrated, and the definition criteria are very vague. Like the four famous books (Dream of Red Mansions, Journey to the West, Water Margin and the Story of the Three Kingdoms), it is not in line with the standards included, although It was written in ancient times.
On the contrary, there are also many articles written in modern style similar to classical Chinese. So, is this part going to be included or is it a problem?
The problem of dialects is not established here because it is not another language, and it is not as complicated as Chinese. Therefore, compared with modern dialects, ancient literature is not established at all.
Even if the first three problems are solved, then should we continue to create related plans for ancient Chinese(och), middle Chinese(ltc), etc., not only Wikisource, but also Wikipedia, etc. (Hey, you should say, These things are not worth having, double standards?)?

To say that the irrelevant, the requester may be abusing the disrupt, "Bobo alcazar", "夕沉弦人" and the IPv6 address should be the same person. In summary, I am very opposed to the establishment of the project. In addition, it is too hurried to mark it as "eligible" so quickly.

Samidare Renka -talk- 07:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You always judge language by time. But in fact? There are thousands of languages on earth now. And lzh has nothing to do with the ancient times. I don't no why you must zipper them. Middle and Old Chinese is historical language, so it shouldn't exist. Just is the last line in the picture active languages which are used today should exist.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@五月雨恋歌: I'm not that user, anyway I always contribute by loginning, unless if somewhat bug on ISP happened. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: I am not referring to you. --Samidare Renka -talk- 08:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah down. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

对那个猜测有点无语,没有发现我的英文错字率比他低很多吗哈哈哈哈~ btw你的这个中英对照oppose看似有理有据逻辑漏洞很多,比如完全的二律背反:你的一切理论都基于文言文和普通话是一种语言的两种不同表达方式,因此才会提出按时间年代划分这种说法。 先占个坑,有空补齐!btw怀疑我们两个人是傀儡的做法真的很uncivilized,谴责一下。 signature回家再发,抱歉手机版不太会用! --— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 夕沈弦人 (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@夕沈弦人: It's not your call, nor my call, and nor Samidare Renka's call, it's under RFCU judgement. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. In my opinion, just the fact that a normal Chinese has to study to be able to read and understand Literary Chinese correctly ("văn ngôn" in Vietnamese) is enough to have its own Wikisource version. Tân (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am agree with you. They're exactly two languages. And they have completely different grammar. There's no reason to merge two languages which don't have many in common.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To make interface available as Literary Chinese, just visit special:preferences and set lzh is ok. I don't see if there are enough reasons to provide an independent wiki. -- 08:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained them in Evidence. Maybe you should see first?--Bobo alcazar (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LZH interface is rather off topic here, as it is not a requirement to have a localized interface for historical language and every one can use whatever interface language they like, and if someone still want to make a LZH translation of the interface they can always head to and start doing translation, irrelevant to and independent from the proposal we are discussing here.C933103 (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@C933103: The local discussion on zhwikisource think that "the lzh users will consider zhwikisource as a dustbin", so maybe saying "split" would must likely be an overkill of them, what about saying that we're duplicating instead? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We'll never consider it as the dustbin. Mandarin Chinese is my mother tough, I love it! How can I condider which I love as dustbin? we also hope it to exist better! And we will formulate thorough rule about coverage after the setting of Literature Chinese Wikisource.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See my post in #practical problems... section, which I raised a similar question. It would be nice if others who are participating in this discussion can express their opinion on it under that section. C933103 (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. For the first,yes. But Wiki is used to be a Long-term plan, we have no reason to oppose a submitting just because a lot of work. We just judge by the principle. For the two,yes. Most of them will be Chinese People. But I don't think it's a problem. For the three, lzh is really a language not a variant.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Agusbou2015 as Chinese Wikisource already hosts classical Chinese well.--Jusjih (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the #Evidence carefully already--Bobo alcazar (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226:Zh will not become dustbin. Because Mandarin Chinese is no different from others. In fact, the problem you are considering exists between any user with overlapping languages and is not a new problem at all. But you have repeatedly urged and worried about the situation of zh, then I will still talk about it. Specifically, we have initially determined the scope of the inclusion plan: So-called with a little lzh is of course so-called, for the book, we have a whole book for the unit, if one of the books is lzh, and the whole is So-called, then the entire book is only included in the so-called Wikisource. Unless this one is included in a collection of lzh. This is actually a normal processing method. Of course, zh Wikisource, for historical reasons, does have to take on more works now, but this situation will slowly improve, and we have no reason to delete the articles that have already been entered. We will fully consider the situation of zh, this is our common responsibility.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Strongly disagree with the proposal. It will strongly disturb existing community. It will be a massive content move if lzhwikisource is created, perhaps only smaller than Wikipedia's media being moved to Commons. But this time it happens on a much smaller community. Look at statistics on zhwikisource, there are 121 active users, 295315 articles, 826162 pages and average edits per page is 1.8. Most pages are mass created without any further edits. There are just so many pages full of text without a link or category. I made 30% of edits and created 50% pages, I know how time-consuming it will be to move content to another wiki. In fact, it may never be completed. I will definitely lose interest in Wikisource if I have to spend months just to move content to another wiki. The precious volunteer time should be spent on improving quality and coverage of Chinese Wikisource.--Midleading (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First,many of my friends are interested in Literature Chinese,but they don't know Wiki. I'm introducing Wiki to them. It's just my frineds. Put it all over the world, it's a large number. And the second, we can't put give up a project just by the status quo. Many of us are trying our best, spend all of our free time to developping it. The number is growing.the train is slower than carriage,but now its speed is reaching 1000km/h. I have said many times that the status quo is not important,while the point is if it's principle. And it's reasonable to oppose the submission. --Bobo alcazar (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As many wikis transclude files from Wikimedia Commons, how about this compromise to create lzhwikisource if enough support, but also set up mirror so Literary Chinese texts on Chinese Wikisource will be automatically transcluded without massive moves or copies? If this compromise is done, edits will have to be normally done on Chinese Wikisource, just like editing Wikimedia Commons rather than local wikis.--Jusjih (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No.lzh shoulden't be treated differently. We have no reason to treate it differently. Lzh must have its own Wikisource. Besides, I'v said that the most important is tje principle, if it'trur, everything will be better. So ,we must support the request!--Bobo alcazar (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of previous[edit]

I think the title of this section calls for native editors, not contents. --DS-fax 08:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the rule requiring "native editors" does not apply to historical/extinct/ancient languages, naturally, and such languages are absolutely permitted to have Wikisource projects. The only real question to be decided in this case is whether contents in Literary Chinese should be housed in Chinese Wikisource permanently or whether there should (eventually) be a separate Literary Chinese Wikisource, to be incubated in the meantime at Multilingual Wikisource. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
as of Language_proposal_policy#Requisites_for_eligibility: Wikisource wikis are allowed in languages with no native speakers, although these should be on a wiki for the modern form of the language if possible. --DS-fax 09:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hat600 and Shizhao: Per the last langcom comment, this request is likely to be eligible, which means that, whether you think it's fair or not, the Literary Chinese contents will be splitted, will be splitted and will be splitted (this is an import TODO list thing, hence said twice) from zhwikisource, despite that what linguists think about. Any reasons you don't agree with that? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the last comment was premature. Quite possibly eligible. Maybe we'll let things exist in parallel in two projects. This is a very unusual situation, and I don't think we have a clear picture yet. StevenJ81 (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@StevenJ81:Yes. The picture is clear.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not talking about if so-called Literary Chinese is eligible or not; i'm talking about how it will be divided. you should have a clear criterion to determine which wiki every single entry should fall into, because the authors before 1919 (and even after that) did not think they're different languages. for instance, how would zh:七律·长征 be treated? do anyone think '红军不怕远征难' literary Chinese? and do anyone think '金沙水拍云崖暖' mandarin? --DS-fax 05:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But which language a work is doesn't depend on the author(even just of a period) opinion. In fact ,little Chinese had a rational cognition to "language" and "linguistics". It depends on the grammar of it. As this,it's clear that '金沙水拍云崖暖' are Literature but not so-called Chinese.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@C933103: Would you mind repeating the comment you made to LangCom here? Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81:Ah I just typed my comment on my browser and didn't submit it before I hibernate my computer. My comment is like this:
Let me try to restructure my comments here:

practical problems...[edit]

  1. There are currently ~300k documents on Chinese Wikisource, and a considerable number of them are written in lzh. If a lzh wiki is created, then should they be moved to a new lzh wiki (which would probably requires a very large amount of manpower) or stay in the zhwiki unless anyone is willing to touch them (but then it might create extra difficulty in locating those resources)? Or should some other specific rules to be applied, like separating lzh documents written in areas that are, or are of interest to, people/areas that are not currently speaking Chinese? (But it would be really hard to determine this).
  2. Another concern would be if an lzh ws is to be created then who will manage that? Supposedly the benefit of having a lzh ws is that it can have editors from everywhere and visitor from everywhere to visit the wiki without having to understand modern Chinese, but among East Asian places that used lzh, Korean and Vietnamese Wikisource have rather low activity. So I doubt it would contribute anything significant to development of such a project in forseeable future (not to mention the virtually nil general proficiency in lzh for most of the population in both countries). And then there is the Japanese community, which (if we look at their village pump archive) we do see a few comments that are interested in making a separate lzh wiki; however, it seems like they still haven't shown up here yet. (Someone should really make a post on Chinese and Japanese Wikisources and invite editors to come and discuss about it instead of just pinging some of the most active editors here, but I am too lazy to do it myself). If it turns out the wiki will still be maintained by zh ws participators in overwhelming majority then such separation would be of limited usefulness. (Maybe other changes to the zh WS that make it more friendly to non-modern-Chinese-speakers would be more productive? But I am not sure how to implement them.)
  3. (It is not in the mail but I just thought of it:) Actually the request here seems to be focused more on different Chinese languages. This way, the current Chinese Wikisource should be interpreted as the wikisource for Mandarin and its standardized form and the standardized version of written Chinese that is based on this. Other Chinese languages' Wikisources would focus on keeping documents written in those other Chinese languages. Then the problem about LZH content would be that it's neither ancestor of Modern Mandarin languages nor ancestor of other Chinese languages, yet it's used to record people speaking all these different language variants up till last century. Now, the question would be, is it worthwhile to create another Wikisource because of this?
C933103 (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the question #2, do you know why Vietnamese Wikisource is much less attractive and traffic than any "ebook forums" out there? It's because the modern Vietnamese written system (quốc ngữ) is rather new (was popularized somewhat 120 years ago, but still a bit earlier than 白话文), so there are not many free works to collect because of Wikimedia's copyright policy. I believe it would similarly apply to Korean and will apply to zh if lzh is moved to a new wiki. I think the contributors for lzh will be mainly Chinese. It's still easier for Chinese to learn lzh than young Vietnamese, Korean, or Japanese. So yeah, this concern should be discussed among zh.s editors. Tân (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's exactly more in China. But lzh is not just about China. So It's still necessary to talk here.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many users think there will be many problems to solve. Many peiple think there will be discussion. And some people even think the developing will make the Mandarin Chinese Wikisource users angry. How absurd these reasons are! We set up it just because it should be setting up! Just because they are two languages like English and French!Just because the principle! Not the feeling of users! Not some other absurd reasons! Everything will change but the principle. Unless we follow the principle all problems will come!--Bobo alcazar (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo is Literature Chinese articles was included by the cpuntry. And some users think it should be done by time. But as a matter of fact,language can't be judge by country so as time. Two languages are two languages.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Comment I do not see a lucid rational proposal to why we should form lzhWS that sits outside of zhWS. There is a lot of discussion, though no lucid proposal with a rationale. So I encourage the proponents to put assemble that proposal for the community.

    I do not consider it reasonable for readers to have to wade through the discussion to try and assemble their own rationale. The proposal should express what is in, what is out, and how it differs from the existing community. From a proposal then a discussion can talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal within a scope. At the moment it looks to be a case of "I don't like it" or "it is my opinion". It looks like a dog's breakfast.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Check that the project does not already exist (see list)[edit]

Yes.It was deleted eight years ago.

@JCrespo (WMF): is this true? There was a lzh.wikisource or a zh-classical.wikisource domain available in our servers 8 years ago? -- 03:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obtain an ISO 639 code[edit]

ISO 639-3

Identifier Language Name(s) Status Code Sets Scope Language Type Denotations
lzh Literary Chinese Active 639-3 Individual Historical Ethnologue, Glottolog, Multitree, Wikipedia

Ensure the requested language is sufficiently unique that it could not exist on a more general wiki[edit]

Literature Chinese is a language that is very different from others in Chinese Languages, which includeMin Dong Chinese,Jinyu Chinese,Mandarin Chines,Pu-Xian Chinese,Huizhou Chinese,Min Zhong Chinese,Gan Chinese,Hakka Chinese,Xiang Chinese,Min Bei Chinese,Min Nan Chinese,Wu Chinese and Yue Chinese besides Literature Chinese. First ,it's a written language while others are spoken language. So Literature Chinese for the Chinese Languages is like Latin for the Italic Languages. And it for the east Asia is like Latin for Europe. But they are also a little different. Although Latin is a king of classical language, it can be spoken. Literature Chinese can't be but read because of it's own nature. It shows the big differences between them. And Literature Chinese is not the former language of Modern Chinese. From about 2500 years ago till now, Chinese people have said Old Chinese,Middle ChineseOld Mandarin and Modern Chinese, but the only written language is Literature Chinese. It means Literature Chinese has been coexistingwith spoken Chinese for more than 2500 years. The same as Vietnam,Japan and Korea, they've been saying Vietnamese,Japanese and Korean, butthey also only write Literature Chinese these years. And all of us wrote it frequently like our mother tongue. If the goverments hadn't deleted or cut the weight of Literature Chinese in education, all of us can do it now. Although the goverments have did it, there're also a large number of Chinese,a lot of Japanese,a few Koreans and few Vitetnamese who can write it today. It turned out that Literature Chinese is a single language and the Literature Chinese Wikisource should be developed.

From a practical point of view, Wikisource is an impoetant corpus(語料庫), And we always research language problem by it. And the (Mandarin) Chinese must be separately from Literature Chinese. So it's useful to part it from (Mandarin) Chinese Wikisource. For example, I want to study the morphology of the character in Literature Chinese ,and Wikisource is a excellent corpus,then ,I use it. But if the Literature is merged by Mandarin Chinese, I'll face difficult. In the other face of a coin, if I want to study it in Mandarin Chinese , I will also miss difficulties. That's all because they are two languages. It's also the point. So we can't merge them!

Ensure that there are a sufficient number of native editors of that language to merit an edition in that language[edit]

The Literature Chinese is the common written language in east Asia till 2500 years ago, you can image the number of it.Now ,I list some of them here:

Analects by Confucius' students 480 BC - 350 BC

The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons by Liu Xie 485 AD - 540 AD

Baopuzi by Ge Hong 265 AD - 300 AD

Tongdian by Lu You 801 AD

Three Character Classic by Wang Yinglin 1279 AD - 1296 AD

Yulizi(郁離子) by Liu Ji 1375 AD

Mozi Jiangu by Sun Yirang 1893 AD

Introduction to Chinese Phonology by Lo ch'ang P'ei 1949 AD

Limited Views:Essays on Ideas and Letters by Qian Zhongshu 1960 AD - 1993 AD

Dai Viet su ky toan thu by Ngo Si Lien 1470 AD - 1497 AD

--Bobo alcazar (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobo alcazar (talk) 03:13, 03 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Second discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Summary of previous discussion and focus/scope of continuing discussion[edit]

If we were starting to add Literary Chinese content from a zero base, I could see arguments on both sides of this discussion. Talking to some people privately about the matter, I used the analogy of European languages. Assuming the analogue of "Modern Chinese"—I know that's not one language, either, but stay with me here—is "Modern French", then is Literary Chinese more parallel to "Old French", or is it more parallel to "Latin"? If it's more parallel to "Old French", then policy says the content should unquestionably be contained in Chinese Wikisource. If it's more parallel to Latin, then it is at least arguable that a separate Literary Chinese Wikisource would be allowable.

Just for the record, and so @Bobo alcazar doesn't continue to argue the point, let me say that I found the argument that it's more parallel to "Latin" persuasive. If we were starting from a zero base, I'd probably have said "yes" to this proposal.


  • We're not starting from a zero base. There is already substantial Literary Chinese content in Chinese Wikisource. That project has been open for over 13 years, has about 300,000 pages of content, and has substantial infrastructure in place already.
  • Remember, too, that it is only arguable that a separate Literary Chinese Wikisource would be allowable. It is also arguable that even if Literary Chinese is more parallel to Latin, Literary Chinese content should be stored at Chinese Wikisource.

As a matter of general policy, we don't usually have the same text residing in different Wikisource projects at once. So LangCom really doesn't see allowing unlimited duplication of Literary Chinese material into a future Literary Chinese Wikisource as a viable approach to this issue.

On the other hand, there is a precedent for allowing some material in a given language to exist in an individual language's Wikisource subdomain, and other material to remain at Multilingual Wikisource. There are two main reasons this happens:

  1. The material is really multilingual, and doesn't cleanly fit anywhere else. (That's probably not the case here.)
  2. The language's Wikisource subdomain cannot appropriately manage certain content, for whatever reason. The most common example of this type is based on copyright: if material is public domain in the US, but not in the home country of the language-subdomain Wikisource, sometimes the material can remain on Multilingual Wikisource.

The conclusion I reach from the above is that I can allow a Literary Chinese Wikisource of limited scope if, and only if, there is evidence that Chinese Wikisource is not able to manage certain content appropriately. So the following discussion has to be limited to that question: is there content that Chinese Wikisource does not manage appropriately? What content is that? And what's the evidence for that claim?

Before opening this up for discussion and evidence, let me make a couple of limitations clear.

Not open for discussion
  1. Continuing to argue the merits of Literary Chinese as a separate language. That has already been addressed. I will strike through any further arguments along those lines, and if they then continue, I will remove such arguments outright.
  2. Concern that the wiki interface of Chinese Wikisource is in Chinese, and not (Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc.). Anyone can go to any wiki under Special:Preferences and set his/her own preference for interface language.
Open for discussion, but may be more of a question of community standards at Chinese Wikisource
  • Discussion and decision-making on the wiki is held in Chinese only, even in situations of greater interest to non-ethnic-Chinese. We'd probably want to see if there are ways to address that question within the rules of the Chinese Wikisource community itself, before assuming that's a good enough reason to allow a new project.
Preferred focus of the discussion.

Even for these points, you must (1) PROVIDE EVIDENCE, and (2) explain why you think that Chinese Wikisource would not be able to make sufficient changes to address your concerns.

  • Certain material is being systematically excluded, removed, modified or redacted, or vandalism left unaddressed, especially if for cultural/​religious/​political reasons.
  • Contributions of members of certain communities are being systematically excluded, removed, modified or redacted, or vandalism left unaddressed, as above.
With that in mind, the second discussion is open. Please remember to be civil, and please remember that arguments falling outside of the questions above will be removed.
For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (2)[edit]

  • It is a bit confusing to refer to zhwikisource as "Chinese Wikisource", since in fact "Mandarin Wikisource" is meant. "zh" is an old code relict, while the actual content of the zh wikis is better described as "cmn". To me this indeed looks like Latin content being hosted on Romanian Wikisource or the like, i. e. it's not making a lot of sense. It could just as well be on the Yue Wikisource, the Minnan Wikisource or any other for that matter.
    As a matter of general policy, we don't usually have the same text residing in different Wikisource projects at once. So LangCom really doesn't see allowing unlimited duplication of Literary Chinese material into a future Literary Chinese Wikisource as a viable approach to this issue.
    I do not think this is a good argument really. While it's surely "possible" for let's say the German Wikisource to accept English content, it does not mean it is useful. And where it was not useful, LangCom has split wikis in the past (az vs. azb comes to my mind). That being said, I do not necessarily think lzh needs an own Wikisource subdomain outside oldwikisource, unless there evolves a bigger community, but the content is still better hosted on the linguistically neutral oldwikisource, rather than on the Wikisource of a completely random descendant's language. --Vogone (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a bot operator and former Administrator, I would say people at Chinese Wikisource always assume good faith, and are willing to help anyone who can write literary Chinese or English. Some people even proposed to add some other language versions of templates to help people not speaking Chinese but interested in literary Chinese, in reaction to this ongoing discussion. And Chinese Wikisource already hosted a large collection of content very fine and has a dedicated community to maintain it. I don't think there is any difficulty joining Chinese Wikisource community for anyone who is interested in literary Chinese.--Midleading (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to the LangCom for denying this request for now. Old English Wikisource with too few activities was merged into English Wikisource. Opening too many redundant wikis might attract too many disruptions if too few administrators.--Jusjih (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jusjih: It's not yet denied, tbh, it's stalled for judging, and neither Vogone nor Midleading are of langcom, so we must support lzhwikisource as another lawikisource, again how do you think that merging lawikisource to itwikisource is fair for you? --Bobo alcazar (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment (StevenJ81 pinged me about the rewrite so it already contains some of my opinion.) I have no knowledge beyond previous discussion above for the differences between literary and other Chinese. The language works obviously need to be collected, and I am somewhat language-agnostic about whether it is

  • lzhWS
  • mulWS
  • zhWS; or
  • lzh works spread through respective east Asian language WSes (zh/ko/vi/... if there are language variations that each is collected subsidiary WS)
I have to rely on others for that expertise.

My primary concern is that maintaining a community is a significant amount of work, and I am not seeing sizeable support to start a new wiki community; though I do ask is there a specific lzh community within zhWS who would be there to move to a separated community? If there is not a separate group, then if the zhWS community has significant numbers of works, and they allow for suitable identification and support for the works, and have demonstrated that they curate the existing works, then I believe that works should stay. I do not favour moving to mulWS, though I could be convinced that this is an option IF there is insufficient support for the works, and we look to support the building of a separate lzh community (an interim step to a separate full community).  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: What about, like French Wiktionary, installing the Translate extension on zhwikisource, and translate policies, templates, modules, categories and mediawiki pages from zh to lzh? By this way interface can be largely "lzh"-able, and so we don't actually need lzhwikisource --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are that we have a sustainable community for the works, wherever they sit. I have no expansive opinion on translations. The works need to sit somewhere as facsimiles.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While not obvious, Chinese Wikisource has significant amount of readers who don't edit the wiki(65605 users, 136 active users), probably because they don't have access to reliable copies of the documents to refer to, but sometimes they start editing and make great contribution. They appear almost instantly in Scriptorium to show their oppose. It might be difficult to redirect these readers to a new wiki since most of them are without an account and don't know anything about wiki except Wikipedia and Wikisource.--Midleading (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moderator comment. So far,
  • I do not see any evidence that there is a problem with the Literary Chinese content within Chinese Wikisource.
  • I do not see any evidence that there are editors contributing Literary Chinese (except @Bobo alcazar) who are unhappy working in Chinese Wikisource.
  • I do see evidence that Chinese Wikisource is willing to listen to any and all ideas to make contributing Literary Chinese content there easier.
  • No one except Bobo alcazar has created content in Multilingual Wikisource.
The only good argument I've heard so far for splitting out lzh (that is, moving it back to Multilingual Wikisource) is the one from @Vogone above. In principal, he's quite right: in a way, parking lzh content in "Mandarin Wikisource", if you will, is a somewhat random choice, rather like putting Latin content in French Wikisource and not Portuguese. The difference, though, is that there are only two Wikisource projects within the Chinese macrolanguage: one in zh and one in nan. The one in zh has about 300 000 pages. The one in Min-Nan has 3 000. (Just to be complete, there is a handful of pages of Cantonese in Multilingual Wikisource.) So as a practical matter, I think zhwikisource is really serving as Chinese Wikisource, not just Mandarin Wikisource. Following up on that idea, can someone tell me (approximately, no need to be exact):
  • How much of Chinese Wikisource is in Literary Chinese?
  • Is all of the rest in modern Mandarin, or are other Chinese languages represented? (Tricky question. I appreciate that there is more commonality in written language than spoken language in China.)
StevenJ81 (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 4342+454=4796 author pages[1]. All of them are written in Mandarin Chinese.
  • A lower bound of number of articles which is known to be written in literacy Chinese is 92820+32966+9806=135592.[2] In fact the number is much higher so we have to look at articles known to be in Mandarin Chinese.
  • A lower bound of number of articles which is known to be written in Mandarin Chinese is 1884[3]+2723[4]+2635[5]=7242.
  • Just like any other Wikisources, Chinese Wikisource is filled with page pages. Of roughly 467512 pages[6], neglible number of them is in Mandarin Chinese.
If the rest of Chinese Wikisource is distributed roughly evenly, we can conclude ~95% of Chinese Wikisource is in literacy Chinese. So in fact Chinese Wikisource can be called a literacy Chinese Wikisource.--Midleading (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  1. SELECT (COUNT(?site) AS ?count) WHERE {?site schema:isPartOf <>;schema:about ?item. FILTER(STRSTARTS(STR(?site),""))}
    + 454 author pages in s:zh:Special:UnconnectedPages.
  2. s:zh:Category:PD-old. Just be quick so only selected subcategories are summed.
  3. SELECT (COUNT(?item) AS ?count) WHERE {
      ?site schema:isPartOf <>;
            schema:about ?item.
        ?item wdt:P50 ?author.
        ?author wdt:P570 ?death.
  4. s:zh:Category:中华人民共和国公有领域
  5. s:zh:Category:聯合國公有領域
  6. s:zh:Category:未校对

Tentative close[edit]

Thank you for that information, @Midleading. Given everything that I've heard (and not heard) so far, my conclusions and tentative close go as follows (so far):

Comments are welcome and encouraged. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just add a note about current language policy at Chinese Wikisource and more broadly, Chinese Wikimedia projects. Sometime ago, 七个点 wants to add some Dungan (Q33050) texts and he asked about that in Scriptorium. The result is that although Dungan (Q33050) is spoken just like Mandarin, people don't welcome it in Chinese Wikisource because it is written in Cyrillic script (Q8209) and thus better located in old Wikisource. And also, recently this article was proposed to be moved into other Wikisources, because although it is written in Chinese characters, it is in fact a Japanese document (the discussion has not received a response so no action is taken yet). People may create author pages written with Chinese characters, but if they are written in other writing systems without Chinese descriptions, such as Japanese, it might be controversial. Chinese Wikisource can be defined as a Wikisource project hosting documents written in Chinese characters and can be spoken in Chinese. A similar situation also happens in other Chinese Wikimedia projects. At Chinese Wikiquote, people are collecting quotes in literacy Chinese. The "real" literary Chinese Wikiquote in Wikimedia Incubator has gained zero popularity. In Wikidata, people (Chinese Wikimedians) almost always use "zh", "zh-hant" or "zh-tw" when they enter a literary Chinese monolingual text.--Midleading (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If what you've written is true, then I may really need to allow Old Wikisource to continue to host Literary Chinese content when Chinese Wikisource is not prepared to accept it in full.
  • I understand the issue about Dungan.
  • Is this "Japanese document" in the Japanese language, but written in Chinese characters? Or is it actually written in Literary Chinese, but the document comes from Japan? If it is the second, then Old Wikisource has to be able to host it if Chinese Wikisource won't.
  • Now, let's assume for a moment that Chinese Wikisource allows the document to stay—but that it has an author page or a description only in Chinese. Now, suppose someone wants to add a Japanese version of the author page or description, since it's a Japanese document. If Chinese Wikisource is not going to allow that, then we need to find a way to allow that kind of access, somewhere. Maybe that happens on Old Wikisource, since we have a multilingual issue. Maybe we find a way to allow transclusion of such content from Chinese Wikisource, so that the most corrected version is always available. I'm open to suggestions on that.
Most of the Literary Chinese content seems to be working fine on Chinese Wikisource. Are you sure that Chinese Wikisource wouldn't be willing to be more flexible on some of these questions?
Maybe we will need to allow an "annex" to Chinese Wikisource on Old Wikisource. I'd still like to hear others' opinions. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know the answer because nobody has done that yet. Some time ago a contributor comes to Chinese Wikisource to create some Japanese articles and templates written in Japanese, and they are deleted. The article I mentioned was proposed for discussion because it is written in Japanese(An old writting system of Japanese which uses Chinese characters). As for author pages in Japanese, I mean this author has not created a work that is included in Chinese Wikisource, and it doesn't have a Chinese description, so people at Chinese Wikisource can't understand or improve this page at all! It looks rather like vandalism. But if the author has created a work that is hosted at Chinese Wikisource, then I'm sure it is within scope of Chinese Wikisource and people will help to add some Chinese descriptions. And for Japanese templates, they were deleted because nobody uses these templates in articles after a reasonable time and description is only in Japanese, so we cannot use it. And last year some English pages were deleted because the editor wanted to translate these text, but after he imported these English pages he realized that he couldn't translate them. Not so many people know these events happen at Chinese Wikisource. There's not a language policy yet, so people use "common sense". But what a good "common sense" means is currently undefined. Recently people expressed their willingness to accept foreign templates, a movement never seen before.--Midleading (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

桃花源記 智海院殿松雲宗閑大居士肖像贊並序 北寧歷朝大科碑記 竹書紀年 They are pure Literary Chinese. So, should them be moved to zh?--Bobo alcazar (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I have to say it again. Each subject of Wikisource should effort in the long run rather than considering how to save time now. That zh is Well constructed is not reason.
And as you say, Chinese Wikisource is effectively already serving as Wikisource for Literary Chinese. And this is the wrong thought. It just be developed for less than fifteen years, is that more? Wikyers are about to work hard for long time, which is enough to develop a complete Wikisource. Liu Bang conquers the world with the Sanchi sword in just six years (劉邦以三尺劍取天下), we can construct it for less than ten years, can't we? You worried about the users is few, but in fact, it's more than you think, they just didn't know Wiki, we can propaganda. Please give more time to everyone to think. Thank you!--Bobo alcazar (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo alcazar: I have two questions for you:
  1. Are there any other users currently working with you at Multilingual Wikisource on Literary Chinese?
  2. Are all the documents you have created there new to Wikisource, or did you copy some from Chinese Wikisource?
StevenJ81 (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As far as I know,two friends and I.
  2. After it be passed, I'll effort there, now I just discuss here. It takes time to editor there, I must get it and then editor it.

--Bobo alcazar (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81:If the request pass by, of course I will effort more. But that's not the point. I've said that wiki is a long run, every decission is not depent on how much people know it now. Before the founding of Wiki , nobody know it. Jimmy founded it just because it should be founded. The history is inevitability. The right things will be done anyway.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if it's necessary,please wait me one month because some exams are coming. Thank you very much.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing the editing rules of it. And I've said that I'm busy recently, so I won't put it on in one month until the winter vacation. And one question:Is What I shall do to develop it with others? Thank you.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@C933103 and Bobo alcazar: Have you ever saw what zhwikisource admin Shizhao said? Your so-called effects are to be failed. -- 07:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just close as this reject reason, the Boo alcazar is doing Meat puppet trolls. -- 02:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC) I see no evidence of this. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]
You don't have other reason to oppose it so draw up such a poverty rumor.(眾女嫉余之蛾眉兮 謠諑謂余以善婬 固時俗之工巧兮 偭規矩而改錯) Please purden the proof. I have to say it again. I thought wikyers are all gentlemen.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobo alcazar: What rules? For what purpose? Are you going to force us to comply without the whole comunity's approval? It's unlikely to see any benefits to join discuss hole with you, the Wang Jiepu (跟王介甫一般執拗,可以爲文章,爲人……). -- 08:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
我這不是在問嗎?我現在是否可以先編輯著,我只是說我在寫凡例而已。。。如果到時候完完全全被否定了,我又沒說不能刪。。。--Bobo alcazar (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I wasn't reading the discussion in the past few weeks, let me take a look at it and make some comments about points that have been stated...

For Vogone's comment back in December 6, I would say it's not really not that much degree of not making sense like putting Latin content on Romanian wikisource, instead it's more like putting them on Italian wikisource that the relation is still relatively clear(er).
For the moderator comment StevenJ81 made on December 10, I would say the conclusion is mostly accurate, except I would like to add the (actually rather vague) consideration for potential
For "How much of Chinese Wikisource is in Literary Chinese?", I agree with Midleading's estimate from my experience when clicking random pages in Chinese wikisource.
For "Is all of the rest in modern Mandarin, or are other Chinese languages represented?", I tried to search a common Cantonese grammar particle character in Chinese wikisource, and then I find a single document救國方針 that is written in Cantonese[by transciribing the audio], and also a few other Mandarin Chinese documents that have embedded a few lines of Cantonese sentences, but that's it.
As far as I understand, the Chinese Wikisource do currently host a number of lzh document that are from Japan, Korea, Vietnam, however the number seems to be relatively minor and that's part of my concern in this request.
As for the document Midleading linked on December 14, that is actually a Japanese document, except it used Chinese character to write out the Japanese grammar particles. (Also, note, that's not Manyogana either)
The discussion about Chinese documents in alternative scripts (Arabic etc.) is probably beside the point, as lzh are also written with Chinese characters in general.

C933103 (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not see the need to create a seperate Lzh Wikisource. So far, all the texts written in Lzh is stored in Zh Wikisource. The fact that there are not many Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese Lzh texts should not be attributed to Zh Wikisource. Contemporary Korean and Vietnamese have very little, if any, knowledge of Lzh, Japanese understand the Chinese characters but that does not imply that they can understand Lzh. Lzh has never been a lingua franca of all the Eastern Asians, but a lingua franca of Eastern Asian elites:Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese scholar-gentries, Japanese court officials and Samurai. These folks make up less than 1% of the population of their respective country. Therefore, I do not expect a large number of Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese users come contributing to Zh Wikisource and much less so do I expect them to contribute to a "lzh" wikisource.

To avoid the monolingual discussions, English can and should be used, and English only. Lzh no longer serve as a lingua franca. The fact that discussions are in Chinese, to me, seems natural, since we do not have a large demo of non-Chinese users. English discussion is never forbidden or not allowed. However, One might need to expect less responses in an English discussion, for not all Chinese editors are capable of writing in English.

This being clarified, I see no problem openning up an English only discussion section. This should adress the concerns of non Chinese speakers. Still, bear in mind that not all, in fact very few Chinese editors speak or write English fluently.----損齋 (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I advise against separate lzh Wikisource. Chinese Wikisource already works well.--Jusjih (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's what we the actual zhwikisource users want, PS @Jusjih: What about other Chinese dialets contents on Multilingual Wikisource? e.g. Cantonese? -- 01:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Please see the first communication.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81:As the first problem you said, the Literary Chinese content is not being properly maintained. I've said it. For researching, Wikisource is an important corpus, As a corpus, it's not a reasonable choice to fix them.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC) As the second problem you said, (ii) the Chinese Wikisource community is not allowing infrastructure to be created in support of other interested communities. They are not able to give 14 language versions for one author. --Bobo alcazar (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Chinese and Modern Written Chinese has one common core, they are the official script of the court during their time, Modern Chinese are more similar on how they are spoken(Mandarin), and Literary Chinese has always been hard to master since ancient times, because they are so different from any spoken form of the language. While there are various other Chinese "languages" used in daily lives, few of them reach the status of official script.
So if we define zh wikisource to include all texts written in official script of the Chinese, it would have a consistent theme.
That does not mean the zh wikisource should include all document written in Chinese, if the character is used for its own meaning, it should be with the scope of Chinese Wikisource, if the characters used is only to denote the sound of the spoken form regardless of its meaning, it should not. As that way of usage violates the design principle from which the language evolved, graphics of tangible being, actions, gradually simplified to characters that represent the idea.
There are things we can do to improve the experience of interested groups who can use Literary Chinese but not Mandarin, though I can hardly imagine anyone doing that, because Literary Chinese is a lot more difficult than Mandarin, if there is any evidence that such group exist. I will support change relating to that, but so far I see no evidence why such group would exit today. If someone is interested in Literary Chinese and willing to improve the content, but does not understand nor speak the language, the only way I can image is that they might have documents in Literary Chinese and wish to upload, but they can't with zh wikisource. In that case, I believe it is much better to host a WikiProject, and form a volunteer group to help with the process. Viztor (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, ron,Romanian, Istro,Romanian, Macedo,Romanian, Megleno have one common core. And you said "Literary Chinese is a lot more difficult than Mandarin" ,it shows that you don't have any linguistic knowledge. By the way,we can just talk about the Future requests the administrator has said. What you talked is Unlawful.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
请问有谁只会古汉语而不会现代汉语?如果有人认为存在这样的人,那么他必定不会任何的汉语。会古汉语必定会现代汉语,而不一定会英语。所以,应该用现代汉语讨论。你们在这里用英语讨论是不恰当的。--維基小霸王 (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone here other than @Bobo alcazar think that lzh content is not being properly maintained at zhwikisource? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I developed a QQ group. Everyone in it support it.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Steven, I think @Shizhao: said the key resolution that anyone, even Bobo alcazar, should accept (unless if Bobo doesn't do anything under Assume good faith himself), In the actual case, Chinese Wikisource is just Chinese Wikisource. How do we think that French Wikisource must also support other languages? Just because French was also "lingua franca" in al Europe Mainland? This isn't because "Literary Chinese contents are not fairly maintained", but because lack of participants. The splittion of Chinese Wikisource, as Shizhao pointed, is a devastation of sane community. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It'is not in the "Future requests" .--Bobo alcazar (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
lol, your "group" does not represent anything other than you and your group's will of doing something. It has essentially nothing to do with this request. And I think Chinese Wikisource has no problem at all in this moment. What Bobo wants is a seperate wikisource. However, his arguments are weak because his concerns can be solved without setting up a new wikisource and, to be honest, I do not see how setting up a new wikisource solves any of his concers? Who will maintain the contents of this new wikisource, and how should these contents be transferred? Chinese wikisource has no responsibility to be "international", but it can be international if users come from different countries. This is not the case for now, and having a Lzh wikisource will not change anything at all.
I also have to point out that Bobo has not made any contribution to the Chinese wikisource. This is not even making sense. One just walks in and open up a new wikisource with his "QQ group"? I find it to be utterly unacceptable. All the problems should have been disscussed locally, he bypassed the local community and takes his case to Meta wiki, for reasons I can not fathom. But I do not think he knows well enough about wikisource.
There was another guy who wanted to "close" "delete" and "shut down" Lzh Wikipedia. Like Bobo, this user did not make any contribution to the project which he wanted to change, and simply started a request so demanding. He failed, of course, for obvious reasons.----損齋 (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment @StevenJ81: One person (Bobo alcazar) does not make a community. This person goes on and on and on and brings nothing new to the discussion beyond valueless comparisons of other dead languages. It is multifactorial about the creation of a language community, and in the example the multiple factors have not been met.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. User Bobo Alcazar seemed to be motivated solely by the fact that he does not like Chinese wikisource. Well, there is a large gap between not liking a wiki project and the need of openning up a new one. His reasons are so inadequate that it is not even possible to support themselves. This user need to understand the above mentioned multifactoriality(多因素性) of the creation of a wiki project. I mean, it seems to me that he simply does not want to work within Chinese wikisource which is already serving very well as a lzh wikisource in the same time. Oh. and it is absurd to blame Chinese wikisource for not having 14 languages versions of whatever available for global users, NO wiki project is ever able to provide a page with 14 different translations within one wiki project at the same time. Because it is other wikiprojects'job to provide their version of the same text. The user does not want the Lzh texts to be "fixed", but how is it possible? You just have a new wikisource and somehow manage to provide 14 translation in addition with the original text in one page? Realistically user Bobo is talking non sensical dreams that can only be realized with a large amount of effforts and time, providing that this whole thing is somehow necessary, which is not the case.
User Bobo wants to convince people that he and his "followers" will make it happen, whatever it is(he promised above that he will "construct" a prosperous community). But attention, Wiki project is never about drawing up big plans, it is about making the plans happen in reality. It's not about propaganda neither. He is asking for a new playground in which he could do anything according to his plan. this is a BIG red flag.----損齋 (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that you are shifting the topic. We have already finished the issue you discussed and are now exploring two new issues. After I have completed the proof of these two questions, you immediately reopen the original topic. You have done this before, but the discussion has not yet been guided that time. Now, you are still do it.,just opposing it for opposition will only extend the discussion time on this topic indefinitely and prevent the establishment of correct results.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81:The things they talk about have been finished and closed. Their talk is not in Future Request. It means they expand scope of discussion again meaninglessly.-- 12:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one made those promises User Bobo, you are the one who has been turning things up. Nobody is "expanding" anything. And you accuse me of "preventing correct results"? This is unbelievable, given that you are the only one here who wants a seperate wiki. Alone with your "QQ group"(You should know that gathering support from outside of a local community to influence the community is not advised at all). I would really suggest a definite close of the discussion now. This person will go on forever pointlessly. As almost everyone here has made clear, Chinese wikisouse is well maintained. You simply banish off other people's opinion, calling them"off topic" or "unlawful". To be honest, I doubt if you are using these words correctly to express yourself.----損齋 (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I need to reiterate that: Chinese wikisource can definitely set an English disccussion section. Not a problem at all. But it is extremely rare for us to see editors from non-Chinese speaking countries. It is absurd to accuse Chinese wikisource for not having "14 languages"(User Bobo said this, I am not sure what he means exactly since his English level isn't ideal).
I need to reiterate that: Chinese wikisource has no structural problems. That is to say, everything is fine.
The 2 reiterations covered the two points of "future request" well. I see no reason for me to support a seperate wikisource. Therefore I do oppose User Bobo's request. Because it is not practical, delusional and potentially detrimental to the Chinese wikisource community.
And sure, I agree that we should always add the names of non-Chinese authors in their respective languages. It is doable and much better than having a new wikisource starting from nowhere.----損齋 (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that this problem can only be solved by Trust and Safety members. -- 08:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the Mandarin Wikisource does not store Literary Chinese well, it is very important for us to build the Literary Chinese Wiki. This is the consensus we have reached. We should not emphasize structural errors. Because I have already fully stated the need to create a new Wikisource in the previous article, and all the solutions currently given include allowing different languages (this is actually not passed by Mandarin) and so on. This is a very simple question. A treated Wikisource is different from the two after all. It is not unaccountable to do things for the sake of simplicity. However, a excessive treated library will be dazzling and overwhelming, and the problem will only continue. appear.There is an old saying in China that "If you want to be fast, you won't be able to get up quickly."(欲速則不達) If you want to save things easily and arbitrarily violate the established rules, it will cause more trouble. This is the case here.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Nobody is reaching any consensus. I do not understand who is "we". From my point of view, you are threatening others. Acussing them with no facts. Your message in English is not very clear, there are numerous gramatical errors, it is difficult for others to understand you. You should make your point clearer, these passages delivers no clear points but "Chinese sayings" and I don't really know what....----損齋 (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the naysayers think, because I'm just having a reasonable, equal discussion.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo alcazar: Which question do you have while you think that's reasonable to you? It looks like nothing, so we are still having the fact that you're questionable. You don't have a stable conceive to get lzh.wikisource, you just want a new Wikisource as your bedroom, that's the fact that you're questionable. You always draw a number of pancakes, but don't provide detailed, modernized plans to start a new project, that's the face that you're questionable. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Bobo Alcazar, please do tell me how can a "reasonable" and "equal" conversation not have a naysayer? Would a conversation with no naysayer be completely onesided? I think this is true everywhere on this planet, because you should expect yourself to be questioned. It seems that you are not at all prepared to be questioned. ----損齋 (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with personal criticisms in either direction. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin Chinese is Chinese, Literary Chinese is Chinese, so we should save them in Chinese Wikisource. And obviously everybody except the only proposer agrees that literary Chinese content is properly saved in Chinese Wikisource and therefore is Chinese. But the relationship between Romanian and Latin is different, and in fact there is no language called "modern Latin". As the same, we don't have separate Wikisources for "Portuguese" and "Portuguese (Brazil)" or "Korean" and "Korean (North)".--Midleading (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is not complicated. There are more litetary Chinese contents in Chinese wikisource than Mandarin Contents. Some of the contents are hybrids of Literary Chinese and Mandarin. It is wise to have one Chinese wikisource. Another fact is that, literary Chinese is not standarized. Unlike many other language such as Sanskrit which has clear grammatical rules. Classical Chinese can be used to refer to a range of languages spoken during different era. Therefore, the definition of "literary Chinese" is very vague. One can even use this word to refer to "Contemporary literary Chinese" which is not "Classical Chinese". Literary Chinese is almost like an invented word instead of a concrete and solid phrase with clear meanings.----損齋 (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"[…] the dialects of China became more and more disparate and thus the Classical written language became less and less representative of the varieties of Chinese (cf. Classical Latin, which was contemporary to the Han Dynasty, and the Romance languages of Europe)."
You may change the enwiki article about Literary Chinese according to your thesis. But I doubt you are going to find reliable sources (most Chinese sources probably don't fall under this category, due to the ruling "one China doctrine", which unfortunately prohibits dissenting observations) supporting your regrettably unfounded proposition.
So I just want to kindly encourage you to carefully absorb the information of this article and learn by your own studies that first Chinese for itself is not a language but a language family. There is therefore neither a Chinese Wikisource (you are probably refering to mandarin, but kantonese could be meant with the same probability).
In your statement it seems as if you were lacking knowledge about basic linguistic termini. That is unfortunate, but it would go to far to explain that now in full length. You are e. g. blending in your argumentation dialects of a single language and different languages of one family. That's absolute nonsense.
So to cite yourself: Mandarin is a Chinese language, as well as Literary Chinese is, but also as well as Kantonese is. The different forms of Portugese however are dialects of the very same language. Regards, KPFC💬 20:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@KPFC: A Chinese wikisource exists. For now it hosts documents written in Classical Chinese and Written Contemporary Chinese. The word Mandarin is refering to the oral northern Chinese languages. If we agree upon this, there is in fact no Mandarin wikisource, since Mandarin means oral Northern Chinese. The current Chinese wikisource is not Mandarin, but very Classical. If anything should be done, maybe a rename of the current wiki to the name "Written Chinese" or "Literary Chinese" should be done. Because this is what "Chinese wikisource" is. You disagree with Midleading because you think Chinese is a language group, it is linguistically true. But we are talking about the written form of Chinese which does not involve most of the sinitic languages at all. The gap between oral speaking and written language in Chinese languages is huge, unlike many other languages. Classical Chinese and Contemporary Written Chinese refuses to be influenced by dialects. You may say that it is due to the one China doctrine, but this is also the reality of written Chinese language for now.----損齋 (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese Wikisource is a Wikisource for all languages in Chinese language family which uses Chinese writing system. This works well because there are lots of works which use "more than one language", for example The Romance of the Three Kingdoms (Q70806) which uses old Mandarin but contains lots of poems using literary Chinese. Of course, the authors of these works didn't think they were creating their works using "many languages". It will be very hard, if ever possible, to define what is "literary Chinese" and what is "mandarin Chinese" while the authors of these works created their work using "Chinese". It is quite different from the situation for Latin, where the author wrote a chapter in Latin and another chapter in French. The separation of literary Chinese content from Chinese Wikisource is actually disruptive because the authors don't think their books can be divided into chapters in different languages. And it also raises the question that even literary Chinese itself can evolve over the two thousand years of history, so we should create Wikisources for these "literary Chinese languages" as well? --Midleading (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Midleading and 損齋: Here's What MF-Warburg said in [1]: "Chinese" is a language group, not a single language, so I don't agree with

the claim that there is "the clear principal descendant" here. It also was shown that it can't be said that Mandarin is such a descendant, the other languages are as well spoken by millions and diverge more than some Romance languages. I am not arguing in favour of deleting Classical content, and appreciate the efforts of the local community to facilitate participation by non-Mandarin speakers. We are merely discussing eligibility here, and it is only consistent to follow the Ancient Greek showcase example (Requests for new languages/Wikisource Ancient Greek 2), and declare eligibility, as there is no reason for non-eligiblity. For these reasons, approach number 2 (Mark eligible and allow lzh content on Multilingual Wikisource in parallel to Chinese Wikisource. We can set up some rules to minimize outright duplication. But the idea here is to see if a community that would otherwise not contribute on Chinese Wikisource appears.) appears to be the sole reasonable one to me. --2409:8902:9321:E195:CEE2:6A2E:2F0B:85FE 00:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear this IPv6 user, well, I've read @MF-Warburg:'s that email, and I would argue an issue regarding his this email: Are we really discussing the correct concept? ""Chinese" is a language group, not a single language" looks like he is refering ISO 639-5 "Chinese (family)", which as I've asked on Baidu Tieba, that is refering any kinds of languages where Han scripts are or were used, which of which it indeed means that any histories of forms and/or dialects of Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese and (don't surprise) Mongolian are included, to be honest, if I'm a staff of the Library of Congress, I would call zhx as "Han scripted languages", which will also allow imaging "English, French and/or a lot of languages used by Western World can also be just written instead of translated from Han scripts". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just let you know, @StevenJ81 and MF-Warburg: This entire discussion page has download as a pdf file, and that pdf file has transfered to the Trust and safety e-mail, BY ME! therefore it would not be easy to just judge this request as eligible or rejected, without agreetion from T&S members. -- 23:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ and MF-Warburg: This discussion—and for that matter this decision—is not one that comes under the authority of Trust and safety. It is strictly a decision for the Language committee only. The implied threat in your action is not appropriate for this discussion. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes,I think now, most of these discussions have deviated from the agenda of this section and reopened the long-overdue decision.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which agenda? And which decision? It's still true that you're drawing pancakes--2409:8902:9300:5626:94EA:1CA4:AD4B:6023 03:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is going on and on. I would suggest a final decision by whoever is in charge. The language committee should have made up a mind by now. I have said all I want to express. Therefore my conclusion is that I would not personally support Bobo Alcazar's argument. Nor will I change my mind or let my mind be changed. Please decide what to do, language committee members. I ask of you guys.I'd also like to remind user Bobo and his group members that they do have to put their project in the incubator first before anything can happen and they do need to keep their promises or else this whole thing would be an irony. In the end I do not personally see the point of duplicating all these classical Chinese texts. I really can't see the point of this. No. no and no.----損齋 (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English Scriptorium[edit]

I have created the page for an English Scritorium within the Chinese wikisource. See this link. I wish this will help, at least we can start from here. ----損齋 (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the requirement of @Bobo alcazar, I am here to verify the existence of a group of people who support the argument of the establishing of a new wikisource program, and me myself is one of them. For us, it is apparent that a new settlement for referencing Literature Chinese work could be extremely beneficial. Once I was doubted as another account of @Bobo alcazar because no one believes that there could be any other person are capable of sharing the same agreement, but I am truly another person. I live in Xiamen while he lives in Wuhan, which is able to be certified through the addresses of logging in location history by administrators — except the time when me or him occasionally used the VPN. As for the supporting detail for our arguments, I think all the words @Bobo alcazar mentioned are perfectly enough, and I do not own a higher academic level. ——夕沈弦人 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Second discussion closed[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

At this point, LangCom has the information it needs to make a decision. At the same time, the discussion here seems to be moving in a direction that is not useful, and probably harmful. I am hoping not to have to protect the page, but I would really like everyone to consider just stopping and not writing while LangCom finishes its discussion. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something that unrelated to Literary Chinese, but affects the future zhwikisource that I would point: Southern Min Wikisource is using Latin scripts, while Eastern Min, Hakka and Northern Min test Wikisources are mixing both Han and Latin in their contents, for all of these cases, as they're using different scripts, it's clearly that these contents should be separated. As for the Cantonese one, I've investigated it via XTools, there didn't have activities since 9 months ago, so I would say that this test project is also dead, But if the actual Cantonese users e.g. @Hello903hello and Deryck Chan: still think that that test project should keep separated, I have No opposition here. -- 23:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for including me in the discussion. I don't feel strongly about Wikisource because it fulfils a different purpose from the content creation wikis (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikivoyage, Wikibooks). For Wikisource, wherever we draw the boundaries, there will always be fringe cases to deal with. @StevenJ81: I'm not sure what you mean by "test project" - I don't seem to see an Incubator project for Cantonese Wikisource? Deryck C. 14:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly unnecessary further discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Deryck Chan: It's located at s:mul:Main Page/粵語. I personally doubt if there is sufficient Written Cantonese documents to be maintained. And, IMO a better solution would be a zho Wikisource (or leave zhwikisource exactly as it is), just to avoid the och, ltc and lzh mess.--Hello903hello (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hello903hello: That's the Cantonese landing page for the Multilingual Wikisource, not a proposal for a standalone "Cantonese Wikisource" site. I don't think anything needs to be "closed" in regards to the coverage of Cantonese texts by Wiktionary, though I can see arguments about which site we should host Cantonese texts in, however we draw the lines:
eg1: Yue gwor 10 nin later yau yun yung Chinglish / Kongish write a manuscript and then gor manuscript enter jor public domain, gum gor manuscript ying goi baai hai Multilingual Wikisource, Cantonese Wikisource, ding hai Chinese Wikisource?
eg2: 若果未來中文維基文庫和粵文維基文庫分家,那麼嗰啲三及第半鹹半淡的香港中文混合粵語口語,應該放在中文文庫定係粵文文庫?
eg3: 香港人寫嘢經常中英夾雜,又 Chinese 又 English 咁樣,咁要去到乜嘢 extent of language mixing before we decide that it should go on rather than the future It's not only about mixing English into Chinese and Cantonese; 反轉 is also possible. Will this 設問句 be appropriate for 中文/粵文維基語錄 or 英文維基語錄 or Deryck C. 17:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe code switching is a common phenomenon in many part of the world other than just Hong Kong, how other wikisources handle such materials? C933103 (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
答问题一:维基文库是用来辑录正常的自由领域的出版物站点,如果存在正规的粤语拼音出版物(任一方案)那么很显然也应该放到yuews中。答问题二:你自己都对其定性为粤语的一种表达方式,很显然应该是yuews。答第三问:如果有这样的出版物,那么我们应当用语法来判断,语言本身不只有词汇一个层面,如果据此判断那很多小语种都当被算作英语。-七个点 (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@七个点:那个Deryck说的是eg(例子)不是question,谢谢。我都不知道你在回答什么。-- 03:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@他提出的例子是在日后施行当中会出现的问题,汉语的问题可不只是「question」。建议多学习学习。-七个点 (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone communicated without rules, This is the reason to close it? And I also saw someone demarcation line by character systerm. Nobody with just a little linguistics knowldege will do it.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo alcazar:
  1. What means "without rules"? Can you clarify it? "demarcation" can be verb?
  2. The actual problem that the actual we, even yourself, faced-to-faced, is explained in [2]: What's the reason that "zhwikisource is not curating lzh material properly", and whilst not only you but also @夕沈弦人, C933103, and Vinhtantran: pointed this very same proposition, there's till now no one even yourself, or even @MF-Warburg: provided any possible sentences (or even even just one) that can be called evidences.
  3. Not indeed related to you, but related to all users that joined this discussion page that, I'm so so so curioused, that why do we allow gaming the proposal pages?
  4. Next, I'm still waiting for your explanations of your self-made words (all are simply searched by Ctrl+F): what's "tjey"? what's "languagew"? what's "denpendens"? what's "auyhor"? what's "justa"? what's "frineds"? what's "tje"? what's "it'trur"? what's "peiple"? what's "cpuntry"? what's "impoetant"? What's "Wikyers"??? what's "depent"? what's "purden"?
  5. "single Sources", as you said sources, that's a plural word, please can you stop adding "single" before a plural word anymore? Just A-N-Y-M-O-R-E?
  6. "Tell youbthe truth", don't you think that this can just result you to be subject to a possible Global ban? Please do not use this word in your remain life, even do not say that word to the air.
  7. "a English" and later "a excessive treated library", this point is learned by every parents in the Western World to their children just during Childbirth: Please use an before "A,E,I,O,U", and before "hour".
  8. "some other language sentence" while I'm not sure which word should actually be pluralized, would "some sentences from other languages" be more fair than this call?
  9. @夕沈弦人: "as the Chinese culture is compeletly different from..." that's "compeletely", you have lost another "e", "And I have submited my evidence." "submitted" you also lost another "t".
  10. "I don't no" really the no is right instead of "know"?
  11. "We'll never consider it...How can I condider which I love as dustbin?" I'm not sure if this question violates COC or not: Which brand of keyboard are you asking? Or which Input Method software are you using? If a word was typed right on the left part of a sane sentence, then why have you inputed it as typo?
  12. To answer "So, should them be moved to zh?", "桃花源記" - already existing, "智海院殿松雲宗閑大居士肖像贊並序" LGTM, "Bắc Ninh lịch triều đại khoa bi ký" Chữ Nôm ≠ lzh, "竹書紀年" - not only already existing, but also because you confused that, that's **really Korean mixed script even you can't agree with it**, by simply touching your chests and ask your self, how can a Literary Chinese sentence use "에서 말하기를" and many other Hanguls.
  13. "decission", why do you entered this one typo once, even you typed it correctly many times before?
  14. "ron,Romanian..." currency?
  15. The really final question of me: I'm still waiting for anyone includes you, to explain that why "They (the zhwikisource) are not able to give 14 language versions for one author.", can you please answer it?

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

您这个态度就太不负责了,太随意了。您好歹要自己看看在来说那是什么语言啊?您看到那是汉字,是在越南与维基文库上的,就说是汉喃书写的越南语,看到是汉字,在韩语维基上,且标题是彦文写的,就说是汉谚混写的韩语?还有,请讨论相关内容,如果您善于挑语法错误,请去维基的其他项目校对,您在这里做校对工作只能说明您没有搞清楚元维基的性质,这里不是做这个的地方。--Bobo alcazar (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 我支持将非现代标准汉语文从zhws中移出,这和我一贯以来的主张一致。因为当前的zhws存在排他性,看似可以将其他非现代标准汉语的文章兼容,但实际上并没有。而且如果能拆分对除现代标准汉语的其他汉语有百利而无一害。那么自文言开始,并无不可。而且某些人不要用你的大一统思想影响到对语言、站点的拆合,认为必须认作同一语言、存在于同一站点才能保障中国统一是一件滑天下之大稽的事,还请顾及自己的脸面。-七个点 (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    那么请问您有没有想过更多人的利益,我们只有一个中文维基文库,闽南语不是中文,闽东语闽北语更不是,Kubelreiter在zhws说的很明白了:“一个文言维基只能从这里复制黏贴,完全没有意义。”,你要是非得跟zhws唱反调随你,不过无所谓,反正你不是中文维基人,真正的中文维基人看到这个proposal都会明智的投一张反对票。照你的逻辑,那么元维基是不是也得拆分成英语元维基、法语元维基、德语元维基等一个语言一个版本网站?-- 03:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    不管你怎么帮那个bobo啥玩意说情,事实就是中文维基文库实质上已经是文言文维基文库了,求你别闹了ok???@七个点:@七个点:@七个点:-- 03:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    总之这里有些人真是欠揍。-- 03:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
我一直在关注这个问题,但因为前几个月多事缠身因此没有来得及发声,如果你在中文维基百科用户群里,那么你可以看到从几个月之前我就开始发表关于这一事件的看法,还请匿名先生QQ一聚。-七个点 (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 同意拆分。七個點君所舉的一些例子,充分證明了若不拆分,則會有大量有很大价值的,符合文库版权规定的内容无法收录。有内容可写,也有人写,那有什么不可以拆分的呢。--游魂 (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment Closing discussion. This discussion has been closed previously and is recorded as being submitted to LangCom.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closing comment (for June 2019)[edit]

This has proved a very difficult request for LangCom. LangCom has decided to put this request on hold for the time being, for a combination of two separate reasons:

  1. There is little lzh activity so far at Multilingual Wikisource—none at all, except by @Bobo alcazar. We almost always put new requests on hold until we see some evidence that people are actually starting to create content.
  2. There is not really consensus on LangCom as to whether to make "eligible" or to "reject".
    • In particular, LangCom does not currently envision a situation where the substantial quantity of Literary Chinese content in Chinese Wikisource would be removed from that project. Certainly that is not going to happen now, but LangCom is not necessarily committed to that course of action in the future, even if this request is marked "eligible".
    • At the same time, many in LangCom accept that at least to some extent, lzh has been a lingua franca in East Asia in a way that parallels Latin's role in Europe. Accordingly, at a certain level, lzh should be eligible for a project, and one where infrastructure and discussions are not fully limited to Mandarin.

So at this point, we would invite those interested in providing content in lzh independent of Chinese Wikisource to create content at Multilingual Wikisource. Create content, and set up rules for infrastructure and discussion you'd like to see in place, and let's see where we are in 6–12 months' time. However, there are going to be some rules and limitations to this process, as described below. For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rules for LZH in Multilingual Wikisource[edit]

All of the above having been said, we also don't want wholesale copying of content from Chinese Wikisource into Multilingual Wikisource. We have the following concerns here:

  • We don't want copying of content just for the sake of creating bulk in the test on Multilingual Wikisource. If a document does not have relevance outside the community contributing at Chinese Wikisource, there is no point in duplicating it.
    • We also don't want Chinese Wikisource to sabotage this effort by copying content in from Multilingual Wikisource and claiming it should not belong in Multilingual Wikisource. (I am not accusing, nor assuming this will happen; we just want to try to keep all this as neutral as possible.)
  • If and when there will be duplication, it needs to be done in a way that preserves sufficient attribution documentation to be valid under the licensing agreements that these wikis use.

My initial proposal for rules about possible parallel content is designed to give us a fairly low-impact way to see how the Multilingual Wikisource test will develop: What content it wants to have, how it wants to create discussion and infrastructure around that content, and so forth. I am open to suggestions from the communities involved.

Any comments on these rules would be welcome. Contacting @Jon Harald Søby, @Satdeep Gill, and @Ooswesthoesbes, sysops on Multilingual Wikisource, as well as @Jusjih, sysop on both projects: In particular: can you live with this? Would you change it in some way?

Request to those sysops: Would you please announce this discussion on your respective projects? Thank you.

For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Translated to zhwikisource, see: s:zh:Wikisource:写字间#6月13日更新近况. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I Support these proposed rules.--Jusjih (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (June 2019)[edit]

  • I am not a fan of having duplicate content. I see serving three functions: 1.) storing multilingual texts, 2.) storing texts for languages that have very small bodies of literature (and hence could never support their own subdomain), and 3.) acting as an incubator for projects that could graduate to their own domain. Since lzh texts are not #1, the question is if lzh is intelligible to contemporary Chinese readers. If so, it should just be incorporated into If not, it should be at, where it can graduate to if there is enough activity or stay on indefinitely if it has too small of a body of literature (which seems impossible to me). My limited understanding of Chinese leaves me way too ignorant to say. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a fan of duplicate content either. The ongoing issue, @Justin, is whether or not there is a body of people with an interest in lzh content who need supporting parts of the wiki available in a language other than Mandarin [and/or whether supporting parts of Chinese Wikisource can be written in lzh rather than Mandarin]. This "compromise", if you will, is to see how much that is really true, and if so, to decide at that point on an appropriate long-term approach. In theory, lzh texts may be #3; at at the same time, LangCom is simply not going to support the excision of all of the vast quantity of lzh content currently residing in Chinese Wikisource. So that's why this question is not straightforward. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then this is a problem the LangCom should fix. If they won't "allow" us to have either or the material on, then they are making it an impossible situation. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why, exactly? What's wrong with having some of the content living on Multilingual? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a huge fan of LangCom's plan. Chinese reader usually possess some ability to read classic Chinese and it is also part of the modern language (in terms of idioms, references...), unless they have not receive formal education beyond grade school level, however that does not mean all articles uses Hanzi are Chinese, some of them are not Chinese per se even if they do use Hanzi, for that part, I do agree they should stay on Nonetheless, if an article is completely understandable to a Chinese speaker, it won't make sense to put it on instead of For lzh users, I don't see a problem for them participating in discussion on zh, as most can understand if not write in classical Chinese. Best. Viztor (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Viztor, see my response to Justin just above. I'm not sure that at the end of the day you are wrong. But there are many competing interests and policies at work here, and part of what LangCom would like to see is whether there is really a serious need for a repository of lzh content outside Chinese Wikisource. If I had to guess, I'd guess that if there is, it will be too small to spin off as an independent project and will stay in But at this point, we'd just like to see what is going to happen. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    hmm, I must have missed the ping, StevenJ81, note that primary language of communication on wikisource is English(even though it accept other languages), while has developed a set of conventions and templates for lzh content and accept lzh. It should be also noted zh.s is already serving as the de facto as few of the modern day Chinese work is in public domain, with vast majority of the present content in lzh. I do see a need to accomodate lzh need though, however, that should be developed on not on, current solution will only lead to less, not more, support for lzh content. The ways I see how zh could be better configured to support lzh content are following: 1) We should have an option to switch from modern day horizontal ltr to traditional rtl vertical, and 2) We could have policies about lzh written in lzh and zh, instead of modern day zh. All of these are better done on than it ever will on Viztor (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Viztor: I don't necessarily disagree with what you say. But I have to tell you: I tried to solicit input from the community as to how it might be more accommodating to people wanting to contribute lzh content but who cannot interact with the community in modern zh. There may or may not be a lot of people in that category, but the whole point of this discussion has been the willingness of Chinese Wikisource to accommodate those contributors. The two responses I have seen so far were:
    • We created an English-language Scriptorium page.
    • Beyond that, the discussion language of Chinese Wikisource is Chinese (i.e., zh).
    So under those circumstances, we needed to provide an outlet. If Chinese Wikisource is willing to allow not only content, but also (where appropriate) discussion and infrastructure (like author pages and the like) in lzh, I think we could be happy with that solution. But if not, then we need to find a different approach for people who need that. I haven't heard anything from Chinese Wikisource saying it would allow that.
    Note 1: If any lzh content is ever prohibited/removed from Chinese Wikisource due to (a) copyright issues in China or (b) censorship issues in China, it would be welcome on anyway, even if that is not on the trajectory to becoming an actual project.
    Note 2: I would certainly encourage the possibility of traditional rtl vertical for lzh content. But it probably ought to be a gadget, not mandatory, and the community ought to solicit input as to whether it should apply only on content pages or also in project, discussion and other infrastructure spaces.
    StevenJ81 (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    StevenJ81 Frankly, I feel like the English-language Scriptorium page is more like a show for LangCom. Who's going to use it?
    To suggest someone might know lzh only is absurd, if they do lzh, they almost always must do zh, as literary Chinese require the understanding the meaning and etymology of a lot more characters than vernacular Chinese, as such, it is only possible that vernacular Chinese readers can not understand literary Chinese, but certainly not the other way around. One of the major difference of vernacular Chinese and literary Chinese is that vernacular Chinese tend to use words that is composed of multiple characters, while literary Chinese tend to use words of a single character.
    The lzh would require a lot more technical support than it has received, for example, some of the characters are just not in UTF, which would require svg of each of these font be created and used. A simple way must be developed to use these Characters.
    I cannot speak to the availability of technical support. Check at Phabricator for that. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]
    I'm quite surprised by NOTE 1, we most often struggle to delete content that is no longer protected in PR/R of China that are still protected in the US (a big thumbs up to URAA). In addition, Chinese law/government has no jurisdiction over Wikisource, Wikisource decides to respect copyright law of the origin country out of respect. So there is really no difference hosting it on or, in terms of copyright and government interference.
    This was really only included as a formality, in case it would be an issue. There is certain content in Polish on because it is still under copyright in Poland, but not the US. Every year a certain portion of that content is moved as the Polish copyright expires. Similarly, those of us not living in China get concerned about government censorship of the Internet in China. I believe you when you say it is not a problem, but if it ever becomes a problem we would make that solution available (for both LZH and ZH, as far as it goes). StevenJ81 (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]
    Well, I would 100% hope more support from technology team if that resource is available.
    Viztor (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    StevenJ81, hmm, when I said there is no difference, I meant if it happens and when it do, it does not matter if it's on or, as both site are hosted by Wikimedia Foundation in the US, not in China, the only possible get-around is a non-Wikimedia site possibly not in the US as well. As far as I am concerned, it has little to do with the difference between lzh and zh, perhaps should be more like a backup plan for them both.Viztor (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the technical part, sure it could be done on Phabricator, however, it would be more powerful and given more consideration if it came in as a recommendation from the LangCom as necessary to properly include lzh content on Viztor (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Viztor (1) Don't worry about the copyright issue. In practice, it's not a problem. (2) As to Phabricator, the request would need to go there, because that's the place to go for technical changes like this. What I would do on behalf of LangCom is to go to that Phabricator task and provide a strong endorsement, which would presumably kick up the priority. But LangCom can't dictate priorities to the development team any more than anyone else can. And besides, the request needs to be put in initially by someone who can actually describe in some detail what would need to be done. That's not something I can really do competently. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can not judge the differences between the two languages, so I have to rely on what has been said here above. I also think that a duplicity is not desired. It could also be difficult to look after the lzh subdomain because of language problems. The only reason would be that on the multiple Wikisource a small community prepares a future independent domain - if the accommodation of the texts on zh makes no sense, and this is obviously not clear. But neverthelesas, I would have no huge objections. -jkb- 17:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, @-jkb-. That's pretty much how we see things; see my other responses above. We'll see shortly how this plays out. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


会古汉语必定会现代汉语,而不一定会英语。如果有的外国语言爱好者连汉语也不懂,只是看了一些英语介绍汉语的材料就到这里发表意见,那么很可能他根本就不懂古汉语与现代汉语的关系,观点十分业余;同时,用英语讨论也就排斥了懂汉语,不懂英语的汉语专家,进一步让这个讨论更业余了。所以,应该用现代汉语讨论。你们在这里用英语讨论是不恰当的。与此同时,我也不排斥不懂汉语的人在此发表一些意见,但这些意见只能看成是业余爱好者的意见,除非这个人证明自己是个专业汉学家。--維基小霸王 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By Google Translate, with some corrections by User:94rain. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss it in modern Chinese. People who don’t know Chinese don’t understand this problem at all.

People who understand Ancient Chinese definitely understand modern Chinese, but not necessarily English. If some foreign language lovers don't even understand Chinese, just read some English-speaking materials and then express their opinions here, then it is very likely that they do not understand the relationship between ancient Chinese and modern Chinese. The viewpoint is very amateur; Discussion in English also excludes Chinese experts who understand Chinese and do not understand English, further making this discussion more amateur. Therefore, it should be discussed in modern Chinese. It is not appropriate for you to discuss in English here. At the same time, I do not exclude people who do not understand Chinese to express some opinions here, but these opinions can only be regarded as the opinions of amateurs, unless this person proves that he is a professional sinologist. --維基小霸王 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
end translation

The problem with your suggestion is that the final decision on this must be taken by the Language Committee, and only one member of the committee (not really active much these days) speaks Chinese. We are trying very hard to understand the issues here, but we need to be involved. Understand, too, that this is not only about the relationship between ancient Chinese and modern Chinese, but also about policies in place here, which is our expertise.
I also think it is worthwhile to repeat what has and what has not been decided.
  • What has been decided: LZH content is not going to be removed from Chinese Wikisource. It is not going to happen now, and the Language Committee does not see any scenario in which it will happen in the future, either. So I think people need to stop worrying about that.
  • What has not been decided: Whether or not there is need for an additional, limited repository of content in LZH outside of Chinese Wikisource. It has been suggested that there are people interested in LZH content who cannot communicate in modern Chinese. They may, for example, be from places like Japan or Korea, where LZH was used in some historical documents. I have been told that discussion and infrastructure on Chinese Wikisource must take place in modern Chinese. If so, people who cannot communicate in modern Chinese (but do read LZH) could have a problem. So there are really two solutions to that problem:
  1. Any discussion or infrastructure relating to LZH content in Chinese Wikisource is allowed to be in LZH, not only in modern Chinese.
  2. Allow a limited repository of content in LZH outside of Chinese Wikisource—initially in Multilingual Wikisource.
At this point, LangCom thinks that two questions are open.
Question 1.: Are there really people interested in LZH content who cannot communicate in modern Chinese? So far, only one person has been interested enough in this to create content on Multilingual Wikisource.
Question 2.: Is Chinese Wikisource willing to allow discussion and infrastructure relating to LZH content to be written in LZH and not only Modern Chinese?
  • If the answer to Question 2 is yes, then once I am satisfied that this policy is in place on Chinese Wikisource, I will recommend to the Language Committee that this proposal be rejected.
  • If the answer is no, then the Language Committee probably needs to provide a place where LZH content can be discussed in LZH. It's really that simple.
Those are the questions requiring answers, not what the relationship is between LZH and modern Chinese. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is also I wanna ask, especially asking @Bobo alcazar:, do we have anyone who can only speak lzh but not Mandarin? Is there anyone who is so in our world? -- 03:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“会古汉语必定会现代汉语”,这未免太想当然了。这世界上还真有不少语言学家/汉学家只懂古汉语的--Shizhao (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate is totally off, real meaning should be - "Those who know Literary Chinese must also know modern Chinese. This is too sweeping a statement. In this world there are quite a few linguists/Sinologists who only know literary Chinese." (Translated --Cohaf (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]

请给出参考资料。--維基小霸王 (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By Google Translate: Please give a reference. (translation provided by StevenJ81 (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]
謂之古漢語,史存直等諸儒皆否之,蓋文(LZH)之與白(Chinese Dialog)並行也久矣。以史觀之,漢和韓越之大夫皆通漢文,而不能與中國通言語者多矣!筆談是其證。僅吾友之中,即有交趾人之通漢文而讀以漢越音者也!--Bobo alcazar (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
你懂现代汉语,别说古汉语,否则不懂中文的提案者StevenJ81都没法机器翻译了。--維基小霸王 (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
请注意语和文的区别. Please take into the consideration the difference of Spoken Chinese and Written Chinese, people in ancient time do not speak literary Chinese, they speak vernacular Chinese of their time, literary Chinese is entirely for writing. Ancient Chinese could also refer to the variation of spoken Chinese at that time, which has little to do with written literary Chinese, which only exist in writing and its grammatical structure remain largely unchanged even though the phonetics has changed quite frequently.Viztor (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
不要割裂语和文的關係。文字和語言總體上是一體的。--維基小霸王 (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@C933103, Bobo alcazar, 夕沈弦人, Vinhtantran, and KPFC:@七个点, 游魂, and Shizhao:还有就是,请问你们有任何理据,哪怕只有一个,来佐证越南语是古汉语一部分这一命题么?显然我们都知道s:vi:Truyện_Kiều_(bản_chữ_Nôm)不是。Also, do you all have any evidences, even just one, to indicate that "Vietnamese is a part of lzh"? It's clearly than God that we know that s:vi:Truyện_Kiều_(bản_chữ_Nôm) is not. Ngoài ra, tất cả các bạn có bất kỳ bằng chứng nào, thậm chí chỉ một, để chỉ ra rằng Tiếng Việt là một phần của văn học Trung Quốc? Rõ ràng là chúng ta biết rằng s:vi:Truyện_Kiều_(bản_chữ_Nôm) thì không. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The another thing that I would ask, and only ask, @StevenJ81:, that as per s:zh:Wikisource:写字间/存档/2019#就中国共产党文件收录问题的讨论, it's possible that after transwiki-ing some zh.wikisource pages to mul.wikisource, there's a dangerous thing that someone can modify category to claim that those transwikied pages are "Literary Chinese contents", so is your rules also to be applied in such cases? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That being said many times before, if anyone material is just using Han characters, with pictophonetic, compound, making use of methods, and elsewhere ways to make new words, to indicate some foreign languages, then which language it is being belong to, just pick which language Wikisource to save that. If the meaning of a to-be-saved material is just ment to teach Chinese language, just feel free to save then into zhwikisource, there's no worries that which dialect it uses, just because its writting language would never been phased out. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
为保障非现代标准汉语使用者经由谷歌翻译得到的信息偏离程度降低,我将尽量使用浅白的现代标准汉语来阐述我的观点和论据。一,“谁污染,谁治理”我并没有提出过你所说的(即 Liuxinyu970226 )“请问你们有任何理据,哪怕只有一个,来佐证越南语是古汉语一部分这一命题么?”这一滑稽言论,因此我并不应当负责你所说的举证责任。二,維基小霸王 所说的“不要割裂语和文的關係。文字和語言總體上是一體的。”是一种极端滑稽可笑的言论。难道用二简字正字法写就的普通话文本就不是现代标准汉语文(亦即你们所说的中文)了么?以北方话拉丁化新文字正字法写就的《大公报》文本难道就不是现代标准汉语文了吗?还有以官话合声字母正字法写就的通识课本难道就不是现代标准汉语文了吗?这些在历史上都是有大量用例,存在大量传世文本的非当代现代标准汉语正字法的正字法,难道还不够驳斥“语文一体”这一谬论?三,如果当前的所谓中文维基文库不拆分,那么请问现存的及未来的非现代标准汉语维基文库的地位是什么?会不会受到因为该站的存在而受到语言委员会驳斥建站请求?自然,如果你或他人能够提出一个合理的能够解决我所需要解决的问题的不拆站的方案,那么我并不会坚持当前的拆站要求,因为毕竟拆站不是目的,而是解决上述若干问题的合理手段。另,你在驳斥Bobo的言论中采用的链接论据恰好实质上驳斥了维基小霸王在“语文一体”上的阐述,事实上,参与讨论的人都知道使用喃字+汉字写就的历史文献向来都是记载当时的越南语而非流传于越南上层的文言,别脑子一热就瞎胡举质证。你在s:zh:Wikisource:写字间/存档/2019#就中国共产党文件收录问题的讨论的担心着实有点杞人忧天,至少Bobo不会把现代标准汉语文本认作文言文本,他的目的本身就不在于扩大所谓存量,而是将本就应当存在的文言与现代标准汉语之间的藩篱树立起来。延伸开去,这是在保障同语言代码下不同维基计划的内文语言政策一致性,你要知道现代标准汉语文维基百科连文言原文都要求翻译否则就挂未翻译模板。“That being said many times before, if anyone material is just using Han characters, with pictophonetic, compound, making use of methods, and elsewhere ways to make new words, to indicate some foreign languages, then which language it is being belong to, just pick which language Wikisource to save that. If the meaning of a to-be-saved material is just ment to teach Chinese language, just feel free to save then into zhwikisource, there's no worries that which dialect it uses, just because its writting language would never been phased out.”你在这里对现代非标准汉语的存续倒是很盲目乐观,我除了微笑还能回应什么呢。而且如果你认为越南并不存在使用文言写就的文献,那我只能掏出一本《大越史记全书》原文来打你脸了。-七个点 (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@七个点:另一個中文維基文庫使用者的回應(來自@晞世道明:):又是淘氣人說淘氣話,敢問他日唐滌生的作品該錄進粤文?中文?還是文言文維基?--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is continuity exist between vernacular Chinese and literary Chinese, that's not true for Vietnamese. The idea that the relationship of vernacular Chinese and literary Chinese is comparable to that of Vietnamese and literary Chinese is absurd to begin with. Do not ignore that it is the same people that invented and use literary Chinese and vernacular Chinese, those ancient people, whose work you see today are in literary Chinese, but they DO use vernacular Chinese of their times and regions too, in their day to day life, every single one of them. The idea that a succinct written version and a convenient day-to-day version of the same language should be considered separate is out of the order. The definition of a language essentially depends on the person who use them. In this case, did people lost the ability to read literary Chinese today? I don't think so. The things to learn for vernacular Chinese to learn is vocabulary, not language. People do not need to learn Middle Chinese to be able to understand literary Chinese, it can be read in Mandarin, though the people who wrote it may speak Middle Chinese or Ancient Chinese. The separation of the spoken and written means that the meaning of Chinese retain with its characters, not the tone. Viztor (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this could be of reference [Translating and Interpreting Chinese Philosophy-Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy], for people interested in the Chinese language itself. Viztor (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
反对七个点所谓的中文维基必须拆分解体论,这就好像你很喜欢肢解一个民族一样,既然请问有谁只会说古汉语但不会说现代中文?你没有正面回应,我们中文用户自然不把你当人看。-- 08:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 一、我們建立的是文言維基文庫,不是古漢語,這兩個概念很相似,很容易混淆,請君注意。
  • 二、文言不能說,只能寫和讀。

然後我回答您的問題。譬如日本,漢文教育是高中教育的內容,是必考的。一個在學校好好讀過書的中學生畢業後應當能看懂文言。而其中相當一部分對文言感興趣閲讀過一些書籍的學生,能夠寫簡單的文言。至於鄉間儒林,他們寫漢文的能力應當比您高。--Bobo alcazar (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo alcazar and Ngguls:本地最新回复:“如果只是在他们语言的文库里面添加一些他们的古文文献,我没什么说的,但是要把文言从中文文库里面分离出去,那坚决反对。弄了一个英文页面来讨论中文的问题,这让大部分中文贡献者无法参与讨论,部分人真的很无耻。”--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobo alcazar and Ngguls:就日本文言文问题,7月30日中文维基文库最新回复:“日本義務教育只到初中,所以高中不是義務教育。文言的中文、日文不同吧?”--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From Midleading: 我就不明白到底什么中文内容是不能放进中文维基文库非要放进多语言维基文库的。七个点的意思好像是说文言文不能放进中文维基文库,要把Dazhongbao放进来。我怎么觉得大部分人应该支持把文言文放进中文维基文库,把上述文件放进多语言维基文库。 (I'm still unclear that, which contents are Chinese texts that "are not suitable for publishing to zh.wikisource, but instead to mul.wikisource". Qigedian was saying that lzh contents should not suitable for zh.wikisource, but Dazhongbao is. Well, but I think however that many peoples would support putting lzh contents on zh.wikisource, and Dazhongbao on mulwikisource.) --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
刘先生,感谢您一直以来在这件事上费了这么多心,真的十分感谢您!我们都是维基人,也都喜旺维基好,我们的终极目标是一致的,只是中间有一些误会。希望您能理解,语言与文字的区别。一门语言可以被多种文字记录,这不影响着是一门语言的事实。且按照维基的惯例,维基项目语言版本的划分,都是依照语言而非文字。譬如有人想做一个汉喃混写的越南语维基,那么它申请一个新的危机项目是绝不会成功的,因为已经有一个越南语维基了。同理,文言与官话虽然都是由汉字书写的,但并非同一门语言,这就像汉语不是日语,英语不是拉丁语一样。而北拉书写的汉语,仅仅换了一套表记系统,written system而已,是同一门语言。就像汉字书写的客家话文本和拉丁字书写的客家话文本都是客家话一样。 祝维基越来越好!--Bobo alcazar (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobo alcazar:在我愿意继续当各位的传话筒之前我不得不说一些关键性错误:1.我姓柳,不姓刘;2.请将“喜旺”订正为“希望”,这错误甚至Word党都无语了;3.“我们的终极目标是一致的”我,至少我,不觉得我的目标是要拆分中文维基文库;4.“且按照维基的惯例,维基项目语言版本的划分,都是依照语言而非文字。”那么阁下如何看待古英语内容应当存放至英语维基文库?本来古英语也是有自己的维基文库的,如果照您的逻辑,我是不是应该提请重新将古英语内容拆分出英语维基文库?4.5.为何要强求文言文走拉丁语路线而不是古英语路线?阁下是天主教爱好者么?5.“祝维基越来越好!”倒不是说您,难道七个点也是如此么?就我所知中文维基文库很多用户对于七个点言论及行为的态度基本向Kubelreiter的这句话看齐了:“荒唐。说实话,即使这个人建立了文言维基文库,目前的文库照样运行,没人能禁止我们在这里添加文言内容。因为这是中文维基文库,文言也是中文。相反,一个文言维基只能从这里复制黏贴,完全没有意义。”--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
我还是那句话,你们在这吵什么统独之争一类的,我不愿意支持谁,我也不愿意反对谁,但如果硬要说我反对什么,我只反对一样东西:维基分离主义,因为持有这种主义的人其实已经背叛了“维基”一词的原意,何为维基,维持基石,这里维持是指对自由贡献内容的精神进行广泛传承,而贡献的内容恰好就是一块块网络基石,没有基石就造不出地基,又何论高楼大厦、高速公路、高速铁路、交通网甚至太空探索呢?而维持这些基石,是不可能也不应该只由一两个老顽童在那脑补“砌墙”,而是一个个稳定且具有合作心的社群一人搬砌一块砖瓦,最终形成一座坚不可摧的知识长城(好吧也许有人会拿功夫墙驳斥我这种比喻),如果其中任何一块维基砖瓦被分离,那么这座墙就产生了漏洞,敌人就会拿网络炮弹朝向漏洞喷射而去,同里如果什么内容都可以轻易的分离,那倒不如这个世界就别存在互联网好了。--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose某些维基独派,语文总体上本就一体,像七个点等某些独派用户扭曲中文用户的统派言论,在评论中忽略了总体二字,好像我们统派谁都自我宣称是说语文绝对一体,于是把语文的一些所谓区分作为独派反驳统派的论据,这是稻草人论证。这些独派还使用“谬论”这样的情绪化语言。可见这帮用户太偏激了,为了达到分裂我们中文维基社群的目的无论手段,和这帮用户争论纯粹浪费时间,我不愿再回复这帮用户。-- 06:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an absurd proposal[edit]

I Strong oppose this proposal. Most of classical Chinese sources have already existed in Chinese wikisoure, only very few people contribute in the so-called "Literary Chinese wikisource". And, if someday this proposal is approved, the Middle English wikisource (enm) is also able to create its own site, because they can simply copy many Middle English texts from English wikisource and paste them to the new site! I think there is absolutely no need to create this new site, and it's an absurd proposal.
堅決反對這個提議。大多數文言文文獻已經存在於中文維基文庫,只有極為少數人去所謂的「文言文維基文庫」貢獻。而且,如果有一天這個提議被通過,那麼中古英語維基文庫(enm)也可以創建自己的站點,因為他們可以簡單地從英文維基文庫複製許多中古英語文獻黏貼到新的站點去!我認為完全沒有必要創建這個新的站點,而且這是一個荒謬的提議。--el caballero de los Leones (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@唐吉訶德的侍從:還真有人要支持中古英語版本,見下文RFC鏈接。--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Rewriting my previous comment in Chinese) 問題在於,文言文是古時東亞廣泛地區的通用語,導致日韓越等國大量歷史文獻都是以文言文撰寫,而由於中文維基文庫以現代中文作為交流管理的語言,導致來自相關國家能夠讀寫文言文的使用者也難以參與相關文件的協作和管理。同時,也因如此,一部分來自相關國家的文言文資料被儲存在日韓等語言版本的維基文庫,而沒有存放在中文維基文庫,而另一部分卻就只被放在中文維基百科,造成資料散落。就此,個人認為創建文言文維基百科集中管理文言文資料可以便利搜索和管理,並方便存取和連結。C933103 (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@C933103:1. 我不认为中国,包括台湾地区,有人不会说现代中文。2.在会说文言文的情况下,学习现代汉语是简单的——只要把生僻字一换,差不多便可读懂。3.中国大陆的义务教育课程目标中明确地包括了简单文言文的阅读,据上讨论台湾地区似乎也有,因此我认为中文维基文库大部分编者——至少包括管理员——能够在一定情况下阅读并理解文言文(如zh:s:User:Longway22)。——text from user:落花有意12138 11:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@落花有意12138:這裡指的東亞廣泛地區,包括日本、韓國、越南等地。從文言文學習現代漢語,在語法有異的基礎之上,還有大量現代漢語新增詞彙等需要學習。至於問題第三點,問題不是中文維基文庫編者能否理解文言文,而是希望貢獻文言文資料的人能否理解現代漢語。相關編者在理解並參與以現代中文寫成的中文維基文庫會有困難,因此不能從中文維基文庫使用狀況推導其使用狀況C933103 (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@C933103:1.可视文言文为中文之变体,加于现有简繁转化。2.文言文与现代汉语基本语法基本一致,只是词的意义不同。——落花有意12138 11:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@落花有意12138:請試行實現。以我所知,有部份機械翻譯服務提供者已經有以機械翻譯的方式提供文言文對中文的翻譯服務,但其實現效果並沒有優於一般機械翻譯的質量。另外,如果說語法基本一致而只是詞義有所不同的話,請試行解釋為何大多數日本人在中學教育中曾經以漢文訓讀的方式接受過文言文教育,但依然看不懂現代漢語。C933103 (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
我覺得您才是搞混有關概念的人,您所說的、提供的所有材料我找了一個京都大學認識的朋友,全部不是中文世界的文言文,而是古日語ojpLiuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
日本中學教育中「國語」課程一分為三,分別是現代文、古文(古日語)、漢文(文言文)。C933103 (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
以下最新回應來自@EdwardAlexanderCrowley::建立新站点的提案就是个闹剧,跟支持古代语言与否无关。Author:吳承恩既写过白话文的小说,也著有文言文诗词,将同一作者的作品拆分是荒唐的。 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
作家以多種語言創作並非罕見現象,無論是否文言文。C933103 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@C933103:就這問題,中文維基文庫最新回應:实际上我不担心真的文言文文章,大不了把zh移到lzh然后新建一个zh,我们搞公文和法律的圈地自萌嘛。我担心的是他们一定会要面对“红军不怕远征难,万水千山只等闲”是文言文还是现代汉语,“滚滚长江东逝水”是不是要和《三国演义》正文分属两个wiki,甲骨文金文到底是不是文言文,这种问题。一开始觉得是,过了几年换了一拨人又觉得不是了,又要把文章扔回zh来。古代英语过了那个年代就没人写了,用正字法分还是用年代分都分得开;而文言文不是。--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
醒醒,越南沒有文言文,他們有的只是喃字。 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
拉丁文轉換到現代歐洲各語言的過程也不是一下子完成的。甚至到現代歐洲,也還有不少出版物會混用拉丁文。並不見得有什麼困難。C933103 (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
就这一点,中文维基文库最新官方回复:所谓“并不见得有什么困难”只是其他古文字的用户恐怕不会有这么多事罢了;他们很可能最后是年代分,或者在年代基础上适用某种具体的分法(比如每个作者规定一个归属)。要是说文言和白话打算年代分,1919年5月4日之前的中文不管写的什么都归lzh,以后不管写的什么都归zh(或者别的方言维基文库),我没有反对意见。他们所有理由都满足了(一个文言界面的网站放了点古白话作品而已),但恐怕主要是破坏了他们心目中文言的纯洁性。 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
确实,如果注定文言文不会完美,那倒不如就维持现状,文言文放在中文维基文库没什么不好。所谓日本文言文的论调完全就是捣乱来的,大可无视。我同意Liuxinyu970226的主张,C933103真的必须为此道歉了。-- 03:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
由於在此留言的IP用戶的可疑行為和背景,本人拒絕對此作進一步回覆。C933103 (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
再次,請閣下就該言論道歉,我從未以任何IP位址做“退出後編輯”,基於閣下過去幾年多次擾亂中文維基文庫的行為,我已將閣下列入電郵拒收名單。 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
疑似扰乱评论,故予删除线处理。如果不是欢迎回退。--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
尽管有IP扰乱,但依然有几个正常登陆的用户在zh:WP:VPO反映认为切分会让用户感到不方便及不习惯。--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@C933103:我需要问的是,lzh的内容是不是要从zh移动,如果答案是是的话,我坚决反对该提案。——落花有意12138 14:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
難道不是麼,他打算的就是這樣,我們得做最堅決反對,必須讓ta迷途知返。 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose too. 文言文的主要使用者和贡献者都是使用现代汉语的人。独立文言文维基文库将极大的影响贡献者的贡献并加大管理难度,坏处远远大于好处。 Yinyue200 (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still no WMF's official judgement?[edit]

I think it's the time that I provide the entire page to T&S for judging? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a dead proposal because nobody would participate in this project. Let it cool down itself.--Midleading (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Midleading: But the test project seems not dead because of @Davidzdh:, to which they contributed more pages than Bobo alcazar. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Midleading, Agusbou2015, 夢蝶葬花, Jusjih, and Hat600: Another problem that holds the potential rejection of this page is Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages, to which its author @Gifnk dlm 2020: asks many editors of languages in this criteria to support (don't surprise, they asked me to support, IDK what should I say), if that RFC is passed, then the rejection of this request will not only be unlikely, but also just impossible. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to have a separate Wikisource Literary Chinese for the long term. Yet Chinese Wikisource has to better check and balance administrators' conduct, or Wikisource Literary Chinese may be temporarily desirable to shelter "politically persecuted users" to let them get the "asylum". Imagine how bad it is when any administrator blocks someone without good reason, then yells away any criticism to avoid being desysopped, which has been a problem on Chinese Wikisource.--Jusjih (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jusjih: Actually, after @JimKillock:'s large modification and clarification of that RFC to avoid any !vote-pro of this RFL page, I would support that RFC, but still oppose this particular RFL (even though created by myself). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on, I'd love to withdraw any efforts to let me "Support" that RFC, and agree with Jusjih. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]