Talk:Classical Chinese Wikipedia


 * Although it is not so famous in the Chinese Society, there are many blogs introducing this, e.g. 維基百科文言文版(名喚: 維基大典), 汝嗜讀古文乎？, etc. In the traditional media, such as newspaper, there are several articles too, such as 文言維基的啟示, 【維基專題】文言維基起源 - PeoPo 公民新聞.--KongMing (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This page explains what the Classical Chinese Wikipedia is, but not how to get there. Is there a link to the Classical Chinese Wikipedia site? China2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by China2008 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On the right side infobox.--KongMing (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that classical chinese is not a Dead language, if someone trys to delete again, it is taught in secondary schooling in republic of china and part of their university level entrance exams —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forkuna Bibhead (talk • contribs) 03:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect undone
I undid the redirect that has been in place since 2009.

Why? Because an editor went to the trouble to create Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Classical Chinese Wikipedia, which indicates an interest in an article on the topic. I'll leave it up to other editors to merge the content and/or nominate the page for deletion if they like. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  05:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Every article that gets created shows "an interest on an article on the topic". That doesn't mean that we should have it. The page didn't have a single reliable independent source about this Wikipedia version. Fram (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between Classical Chinese Wikipedia entry vs wiki entry about a Classical Chinese version of Wikipedia, where the former refers to a variation of a language. Since the Classical Chinese Wikipedia is about a site hosted within Wikipedia, primary sources of information will inevitably be derived from Wikipedia itself. Requiring an Classical Chinese Wikipedia article to have the same threshold of independent references as Classical Chinese article is unrealistic and counterproductive, especially for the history of the site itself. In any case, there were external links before the article was turned into a redirect. Some of them are restored now. In addition, extra references are now incorporated into the main page. -- 205.189.94.12 (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Navelgazing
I have restored the redirect once again, as this was one of the worst pieces of navelgazing we had. Discussion of admins, users, internal discussions all fail our basic policies and guidelines like WP:N, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS. Please, if you want to have a separate article about this, first show that the subject is truly notable (as defined by the WP:GNG, not by "but it interests us!"), and then only retain important information (basic facts like date of creation and number of articles, plus those things that have received external attention in reliable sources). We are not a primary source, a place to write history: we are a summary of secondary sources. Fram (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)