Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Classical Chinese

Classical ChineseEdit

main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Classical Chinese)
submitted verification final decision
  This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Notes/comments:
    • extinct language

  • mingwangx (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC): I was major in Chinese Literature. I'll do my best to contribute my knowledge aquired in college. (more)
  • Support nl:Boudewijn Idema, 14:05, 19 March 2006(UTC)
  • Support Yaohua2000 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Keeno 13:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support en:User:Laca, 22:23, 9 May 2006

Just like Latin in Europe, Classical Chinese had been the common written language in China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan and Vietnam for thousands of years. Therefore, I request for Wikipedia in this language. For more information about Classical Chinese, please check out these pages: en: Classical Chinese, zh:文言文, de:Klassisches Chinesisch and ja:漢文. GnuDoyng 14:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi, if you can recruit many people, say eight or more, who are willing to contribute to it, I'll support the project. Right now I'm neutral. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 15:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Ffaarr 07:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support GnuDoyng 08:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--mingwangx (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Nanluman 04:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Jasonzhuocn...._交流 04:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Huangjs 06:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Juishan 13:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Earthengine 05:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose:It is not easy to write an article in "real" classical chinese, and I am afraid of the classical chinese wikipedia being a fake.--阿儒 04:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose--Alex S.H. Lin(talk).tw 04:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Tomchiukc 05:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC) If public examination candidates in Taiwan can choose to write in either Classical Chinese or colloquial Chinese, then I don't think people cannot write some "real" classical Chinese.
In Taiwan,even the graduates majored in chinese are not able to write in real chinese, I doubt that how much people can make an judgment wheither or not an article is in real claasical chinese.--阿儒 05:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
@ 阿儒, this is not a question because wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that everyone can edit. That means: even if someone made a mistake, it would soon be corrected. GnuDoyng 12:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There are several questions to 文言(classical chinese):
    • Is classical chinese a language, or a writing style?
    • Is classical chinese chinese language?
    • Is classical chinese an ancient chinese lamguage?
    • Do chinese wikipedia ban on writing classical chinese?

--阿儒 05:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

    • I think that the answer to the Fourth question is yes.There were articles deleted or revised for this reason.Answer to the other three question depand on the definition of these words.I think it is very similar with Latin or Old English.--Ffaarr 06:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral It's confuse this proposal --Taichi - (あ!) 09:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--encyclopedist 14:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Harvzsf 16:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Sangye 10:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. But we need to sort out many things.

For example, how do we translate a huge number of terms that have no equivalent in classical Chinese? This would include:

  1. The vast majority of non-East Asian personal and place names.
  2. Most specialized terminology devised after the 20th century, especially
  3. Most terminology having to deal with computer technology.

The fact is, many of these terms have been translated differently among even Mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, let alone between China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. Many of these terms have been translated using kana or hangul, with no kanji/hanja equivalents, in Japan and Korea. If our target audience is supposed to be anyone educated in Classical Chinese in East Asia, how would be account for such differences?

Another thing, that I think is even more critical, is quality control. As Shizhao has pointed out repeatedly in the Chinese Wikipedia, Classical Chinese has changed through the ages, and later writers often unintentionally slipped elements of the changing vernacular language into what is supposed to be pure Classical Chinese writing. Furthermore, since Classical Chinese tends to be taught by example rather than by grammar in East Asia, a lot of people come out of the school with the idea that simply switching a few grammatical particles results in "Classical Chinese" -- even though it doesn't. So what kind of quality control should we implement?

  1. "Original Pure Classical Chinese" from before the 3rd century BC? Unrealistic -- most subsequent Literary Chinese was not pure, and we can't expect our editors to remember what grammatical features were "original" and which were not.
  2. "Reasonably Pure Classical Chinese"? What's "reasonable"?
  3. "Anything that's a good faith attempt to use Classical Chinese grammatical particles"? That's absurd -- the Chinese Wikipedia also uses Classical Chinese grammatical particles. Simply inserting Classical Chinese particles does not make something into Classical Chinese.

Also, many forms of Classical Chinese prose nevertheless employed some measure of "meter". How would we handle contributions of this form? -- Ran 14:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support--I like classical Chinese Hsw1976 11:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Old English can be appeared in wikipedia, why not old Chinese. In fact, 文言文 would be a better gateway to the core of Chinese culture. If some matter concerning about the using of modern words can be solved, the idea might be better. (using some notes if necessary)香港賓拉登 14:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Opposing because people will revert to Modern Chinese is like opposing Cornish (WP at 1150 articles) Gaelic (over 3000 in Irish, 1400 Scots), Old English, etc. lest people use Modern English. Plus, there're more Ancient Chinese texts hanging around. --Nema Fakei 10:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the feasibility is always in doubt, but if anyone attempts to make one, i won't hestiate to show my support. Pretty curious to know how it'll look like too. --Yau 22:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support and let's see where we can take it. Would do what I can. Miborovsky 22:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Although it might not seem most useful to include such an ancient language as Classical Chinese, Wikipedia is about more than doing the bare minimum. Such languages as Latin exist on the website, and many people are active in these languages. Diversifying languages is a strength, and although some of them are considered extinct, the beauty of the Internet and sites such as Wikipedia is that we can keep those languages alive, which allows us to have other points of view, and access to other cultures. Habtey 13:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)