Your confusing comments on RFCEdit
|“||One obvious fact is Classical Chinese is not a dead language, and also Classical Chinese wikipedia is not as you say that "did not seem to have any coverage that would lead readers to use them".In fact the user of Classical Chinese wikipedia are creating new word and content of this language, and until today it is totally create 17,094 pages in this language. Also Classical Chinese as a language that it is has large number of people are learning it from elementary to university in China Mainland, Taiwan, Hongkong and etc. Most people can read it and few people can write with it. So it is hard to call it a "dead language", but only that it just not have ability to create new content.
If this is true, then as Prosfilaes said, that isn't a dead language, and hence irrelevant on that RFC, so why don't you consider temporary cancelling your "support"? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Cause the title of that RFC is about ancient language not dead language. And also ancient language is not equal to dead language. Such as modern Chinese was origined in ming dynasty, so in some cases it's also can be called "ancient language".因为那个RFC的标题是关于古代语言而非死语言，古代语言并不等于死语言，比方说白话文也起源自明朝，某种情况下也可以说“白话文”是古代语言，但很明显在事实上白话文并不是死语言。--扎姆 (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)