Requests for new languages/Wikisource Literary Chinese

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

main page Request for a new language edition: Wikisource Literary Chinese
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.
  • 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 (SILEthnologue) 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:
  • en label = Classical Chinese
  • native label (P1705) = 文言
  • instance/subclass (P31/P279) = written language / written Chinese language
  • Wikimedia language code (P424) = zh-classical, lzh
  • writing system (P282) = Chinese characters
  • number of speakers (P1098) =

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.
You can optionally list your user name if you are an active contributor to the test wiki. Add "N" next to your name if you are a native speaker of this language.
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 File:... 135x135 PNG derivative from a decent SVG image (instructions)
Default project timezone Asia/Taipei "Continent/City", e.g. "Europe/Brussels" or "America/Mexico City" (see list of valid timezones)
Additional namespaces For example for a Wikisource which would need "Page", "Page talk", "Index", "Index talk"
Additional settings Anything else that should be set
submit phabricator task (includes everything automatically, except additional namespaces/settings)

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)

Thank you very much! I must be going to take part in this discussion.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
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.
  • Perhaps we should invite editors from zh/ja/ko/vi wikisource to join the discussion. C933103 (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    Feel free, as long as the solicitation of input is completely neutral. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    That's necessary.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@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)
@大天王皇子, Millosh, Itsmine, Sl, and John Vandenberg:@RekishiEJ: that joined last request page. -- 03:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
tell me where s:zh:西遊記/第001回 falls into. --DS-fax 08:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
the poem part is justa kind of ornament.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)


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)

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)
@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)
@Liuxinyu970226: I am not referring to you. --Samidare Renka -talk- 08:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah down. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

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

@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)

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)

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)
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)
I've explained them in Evidence. Maybe you should see first?--Bobo alcazar (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
Oppose per Agusbou2015 as Chinese Wikisource already hosts classical Chinese well.--Jusjih (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Have you seen the #Evidence carefully already--Bobo alcazar (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Discussion of previous

I think the title of this section calls for native editors, not contents. --DS-fax 08:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
@StevenJ81:Yes. The picture is clear.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)

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

  • What I typed here this morning as response disappeared? C933103 (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    @C933103: There is no deletion or rollback history. I'm thinking (based on personal experience) that you probably typed it and then never saved it. <sigh> StevenJ81 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@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...

  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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

  • 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)


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

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)

Obtain an ISO 639 code

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

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

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)

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

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

Second discussion

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

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)

Discussion (2)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
@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)

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)

@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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)


  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

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

@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)
  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)

@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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)

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)

  • 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)

Then I advise against separate lzh Wikisource. Chinese Wikisource already works well.--Jusjih (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
Yes. Please see the first communication.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@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)

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)
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)

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)

I developed a QQ group. Everyone in it support it.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
It'is not in the "Future requests" .--Bobo alcazar (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)
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)
I'm afraid that this problem can only be solved by Trust and Safety members. -- 08:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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)


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)

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

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)
"[…] 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)
@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)
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 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)
@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)

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)
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 trustandsafety(at), 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)

@ 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)

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)

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)

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)

English Scriptorium

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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)

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)

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