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
Proposal
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.
Community
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.
Settings
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

Proposal[edit]

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 reason 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.

Discussion[edit]

      • 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. ——36.102.227.24 02:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@大天王皇子, Millosh, Itsmine, Sl, and John Vandenberg:@RekishiEJ: that joined last request page. --117.15.55.108 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)

漢語族古今譜系圖(簡畧版)(重排).png

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):

这玩意没什么可讲的。首先划分的范围有哪些?其次,如果要从中文维基文库迁移要怎么搬运?接着,我认为下边那些“理据”根本很难成立:
目前的中文维基文库已经有绝大多数需要迁移的东西,定义标准也非常模糊,像四大名著(红楼梦、西游记、水浒传和三国演义)就不太符合收录到此的标准,虽然说是古代的时候写成的。
将上一条反过来说,也有不少现代写成的类似于文言文一样的文章,那么这部分要不要收进去还是问题?
方言的问题在这里根本就不成立,因为本身就作为另一种语言,不像中文那样繁杂,所以说用古代文学和现代方言相比,根本就不具有成立性。
就算前面三个问题都解决了,那么我们是不是应该继续为上古汉语(och)、中古汉语(ltc)等继续创建相关的计划,不仅仅是维基文库,也包括维基百科等等(欸,你又该说了,这些玩意都不值得拥有,双重标准?)?

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. --117.14.243.232 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 translatewiki.net 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[edit]

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...[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)
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)

Evidence[edit]

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? --117.15.55.108 03:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

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

https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/lzh

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!

漢語族古今譜系圖(簡畧版).png

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)

—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[edit]

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.

However:

  • 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)[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)
  • 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)
{{ping|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) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 117.14.243.188 (talk) with forged signature
@Jusjih:@StevenJ81:That's not me! Please ban @117.14.243.188:!!!--Bobo alcazar (talk) 06:55, 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)

References

  1. SELECT (COUNT(?site) AS ?count) WHERE {?site schema:isPartOf <https://zh.wikisource.org/>;schema:about ?item. FILTER(STRSTARTS(STR(?site),"https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:"))}
    
    + 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 <https://zh.wikisource.org/>;
            schema:about ?item.
        ?item wdt:P50 ?author.
        ?author wdt:P570 ?death.
        FILTER(YEAR(?death)>1900)
      }
    
  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):

Conclusions
  1. Chinese Wikisource is effectively already serving as Wikisource for Literary Chinese as well as for Mandarin.
  2. I do not see evidence that Literary Chinese material is not being curated properly there.
  3. I do see evidence that the community of Chinese Wikisource is trying to make things accessible to people who are not native Mandarin speakers who wish to contribute in Literary Chinese.
Recommended closure here

I am inclined to reject this request, and leave Chinese [zh–Mandarin] Wikisource as the home for Literary Chinese works in Wikisource.
If I do that, though, I would like to see some acknowledgement from members of the Chinese Wikisource community that if people who are not Mandarin speakers wish to create some infrastructure in other languages, you will try to be cooperative about that. In particular, I am thinking that if people want to add translations of author pages—especially for authors more closely associated with non-Mandarin-speaking regions—you will allow that to happen.

Future requests

Future requests for a separate Literary Chinese Wikisource will be speedily closed unless they include evidence that either (i) the Literary Chinese content is not being properly maintained, or (ii) the Chinese Wikisource community is not allowing infrastructure to be created in support of other interested communities.

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)