Node, Jimbo simply said, "your comments should be considered in that
full context."
I tend to agree with Jiaqing Bao, that a Cantonese Wikipedia would be
an interesting curiosity, but as with Min-nan, it seems destined to
whither on the vine. The norm in Guangdong and Hong Kong is to use
baihua for formal writing. It's better to have their efforts poured
into the "traditional Chinese" content of ZH. It works both ways too -
as HK and others learn to adapt to simplified and doing business in
the mainland, folks in the PRC are rekindling interest in traditional
Chinese characters too.
The Cantonese dialect does have unique colorful phrases and a
different linguistic culture that manifests itself in Cantopop, film
and cartoons. Some would seem foreign to "Mandarin" speakers. It would
be great to have these Cantonese-isms captured in some way that could
be done in a combined ZH Wikipedia.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:53:06 -0700, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Excuse me? Yes, I want to split up the Chinese
Wikipedia into multiple
projects, no matter what lines it's upon! Mwahahahahaha!!!
Actually, no. With the upgrade to 1.4, most previous problems on
zh.wikipedia have been fixed. I did submit a request to Wikicities for
a separate project focused more on anthropology but still an
encyclopedia in Traditional Chinese, but the two are unrelated.
Perhaps you should actually consider that I have /given you some evidence/?
This issue has been discussed in a little bit of depth here, by not
just me but others as well. And you're basically ignoring what I'm
saying and labelling it as activist because I like to fork zh: (again,
wth!?), and you're also ignoring what some other people are saying.
If a new Wikipedia *is* created for Cantonese (remember, this *was*
requested by a Cantonese speaker, not me), I think ultimately it
should be in Chinese characters but it should have the same
Traditional-Simplified solution zh.wikipedia now uses as there are
speakers of Cantonese on the mainland who use the Simplified alphabet
too.
As far as I can tell, you have considered NONE of the evidence I have
presented and simply skipped over it for whatever reason and then
labelled it for others as "activism for forking Chinese into multiple
projects".
Well, I have news for YOU, Jimbo. Check your inbox. Stirling Newberry
agrees with me. And what he said is largely the same as what I said.
So where does that put things?
Mark
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:17:48 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
<jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
André Müller wrote:
I completely agree with Alex Kwan. Having a
Wikipedia in both
Mandarin/simplified Chinese and Cantonese/traditional Chinese seems
redundant to me as well. One could perhaps compare it with setting up
extra Wikipedias for British and American English (I doubt that the
differences are much bigger; except for the trad/simp issue).
I tend to agree. Node is well known as an activist for forking
Chinese into multiple projects, and so his comments should be
considered in that full context.
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l