Wikipedia:城市論壇 (雜項) - 維基百科，自由嘅百科全書

# Wikipedia:城市論壇 (雜項)

### 出自維基百科，自由嘅百科全書

城市論壇（雜項部） 貼文

城市論壇嘅雜項部係用嚟貼上同其它類別無關嘅信息。請盡量喺相應嘅頁面中發表同消息、政策、技術、提議及協助有關嘅討論，而並非喺呢度。

捷徑: WP:VPM

請喺你嘅留言度加上你嘅簽名用埋時間（打入~~~~或者撳一吓響編輯工具吧上面嘅簽名掣）。請響最尾度加上新嘅題目。 | 歸檔

城市論壇
消息 (貼文)
政策 (貼文)
技術 (貼文)
提議 (貼文)
協助 (貼文)
雜項 (貼文)

喺舊過7日嘅討論（以最後加上評論嘅日期為準）會搬到哩度。 呢啲討論會繼續放響嗰度7日。喺呢一段時間之中，如果可以嘅話，有關嘅討論會搬到有關嘅對話頁。喺7日之後，嗰啲討論就會被永久移除（但仍然可以透過歷史查詢搵到）。

## [編輯] 很好奇地問[1]

- WP:RD---->

「很好奇地問」：做得呢個遊樂場的管理員，都要有一定的功力，首先要弱智到成日0黎呢個網將0的中文維基0既文章fuck up然後照搬，又要肯唔怕人笑自薦。但係呢0的已經係佢0地識0既全部，佢0地係唔係答到人任何問題0架?—之前未簽名嘅留言係由[2]所加入嘅。

  我唔同意尼呢种講法。首先，“呢0的已經係佢0地識0既全部”並非必然事實；每個人都會有自己專長嘅知識領域，你無理由認爲渠哋只係識得照搬中文維基内容。其次，自薦乃表明本人有意向爲社區做出貢獻，因此並非值得恥笑之行爲。--地球发动机 06:13, 14 五月 2006 (UTC)

<------

---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二零零七年四月九號(星期一), 格林尼治標準 13點35分17秒

## [編輯] Only in places without credible Chinese linguists/America

(由 Wikipedia talk:城市論壇 搬過來, 當時修訂)

This Cantonese version Wikipedia is ludicrous. It's as if having both traditional and simplified Chinese characters in the Chinese version is not confusing enough, now add in one of the scores of Chinese dialects. Like it or not, Cantonese is no more a separate language from Mandarin Chinese than any of the other dialects. Cantonese might be good for spoken casual conversation, but it is lousy for formal or even semi-formal writings. The wording in these pages are not even found in local newspapers of Hong Kong. This Cantonese Wiki would be equivalent to an Ebonics version of Wiki as an alternative to the English version, or having words like "y'all" and "dog-gone" in the English Wiki articles. Wikipedia is a form of written source of information and should have no place for spoken variants of a language. —之前未簽名嘅留言係由68.229.152.169 (留言 • 貢獻) {{subst:#if:|響|}}所加入嘅。

  無名氏君，語言同方言根本係無界綫㗎。你既然識英文，可以睇下Wikipedia en:Language嘅解釋啦。乜嘅係書寫呢？咪就係將說話紀綠落來囉，即使信報咁嚴肅嘅報紙一樣有寫廣東話。你寫嘅內容同個標題無啦更嘅。有好多語言學家係研究廣東話㗎喎，而且，語言學家都有嘅IPA handbook，裏面都有一篇係寫廣東話。都唔係好明你無啦啦拉美國做標題來做乜。HenryLi 04:17, 15 六月 2006 (UTC)
    唔係好明你無啦啦拉美國做標題來做乜 It's a play on "Only in America", seeing Wiki is been hosted in Florida, get it?

Of course there is difference between language and dialect. And try to use any of these writing styles in this Cantonese Wiki for any formal publications, see if you will be taken seriously by any real editors. —之前未簽名嘅留言係由130.70.146.36 (留言 • 貢獻) {{subst:#if:|響|}}所加入嘅。

  (雙語廣播)兄台, 蘋果日報入面, 陳也 等等幾個專欄作家都喜歡用廣府話直接入詞. language 同 dialect 的確係有分別, 但係界綫模糊.
  (en:)Sir, a certain number of columnists on Apple Daily such as 陳也 uses written Cantonese in their writings. Although there are differences between "language" and "dialect", the borderline isn't exactly defined. --翹 仔 16:28, 15 六月 2006 (UTC)
    Deryck, the example you gave is actually a good one. They are columns in newspapers, which are opinions of the author and thus tend to be more vernacular in nature. You will not find the main news articles in the same papers boasting such colloquial writing style. Words such as "嘅" and "脷" are OK for casual speaking, which is why I'm more inclined to tolerate them in discussion pages, but they have no place in formal encyclopedic articles.

  有幾多formal publications根本唔可以作準，三苗九黎講既語言係都係語言，但無formal publication，有啲甚至係無出版過任何嘢。用formal publications來判斷一啲都唔客觀，亦都唔合乎事實。en:Language is a dialect with an army and navy，今日我哋會叫某一隻方言做語言，只不過佢背後有槍炮，有經濟實力，有政治實力。所以咁多人來爭論不休，想搵一個客觀準則，都係唔會有答案。因為分別唔係來自語言本身。今日叫"方言"，十年後可以唔係。今日叫"語言"，百年後可以唔係。正如百年前無乜人會用家下現今"正式"中文來寫嘢，佢出現都係政治產物。HenryLi 01:59, 16 六月 2006 (UTC)
    Two main issues here: 1)What, if anything, distinguishes language from dialect; 2)Is the colloquial writing style such as that for Cantonese appropriate for something like Wikipedia?

1) I would argue that the "en:Language is a dialect with an army and navy" aphorism is subjective, not objective. Read one of the discussions for that article. Langauge is not always politically defined. The US and the UK are separate political entities each with its own military, and there certainly are extensive usage differences between the English used in the two countries, yet they are still both called English. You don't see a British English version Wiki, or an Australian one for that matter. However, you are probably right in that some people are trying to create languages out of dialects due to political motive. I think the fact that the only two alternative Chinese version Wiki are Cantonese and Min-Nan is a reflection of the desperate attempts by Hong Kongers and Taiwanese to find separate identities from Mainland China. Otherwise we might as well see 上海话 version or 四川话 version and so on.

2) I think you misunderstood my earlier point about publiactions. I did not use it as an evaluation for language status. Formal publication is in every way relevant and objective in determining if a writing style is appropriate for an encyclopedia. If the writing style and wording do not qualify for publications, then they are not good enough for something like Wiki articles, which at least tries to be professional and formal. Sure that acceptable writing styles are dynamic, but they are not neccessarily influenced by politics. Even if the Cantonese colloquial style may become acceptable in 100 years, the point is that it is not appropriate TODAY for formal articles.

—之前未簽名嘅留言係由68.229.152.169 (留言 • 貢獻) {{subst:#if:|響|}}所加入嘅。

如果你係對討論認真嘅，方便響最尾打四個~，即係咁~~~~。最好係登記一個戶口，因為都唔知上次講嗰個同答嗰個係咪一個人，而且次次IP都唔同。美國人講嘅英文同英國人講嘅英文，差別細到大家都聽到。不過，就算差別咁細，響英文維基都一樣Commonwealth English同American English之爭，只不過佢哋響呢問題有共識而已。好難令人信，"正式"中文，同粵語差咁大，中文維基會容得落粵語。你既然認為將”方言”叫”語言”係政治原因，亦即係暗示”語言”叫”方言”都係政治原因。所以方言同語言只不過係政治問題，並唔係語言本身。即係語言同方言嘅界綫係唔存在，爭論來都唔會有結論。你講得啱呀，有上海話，四川話版本來係好事。家下就係有人推動吳語wiki，希望多多支持。響呢方面，漢語族實在落後日耳曼語族好多。

從你個觀點裏睇唔到點解一種語言要有好多"formal publication"先可以做百科全書。百科全書只不過係用一種語言去表達世界事物。專業同正式係指內容，並唔係語言。況且，Wikipedia從來無話過係專業同正式，大家只不過按個指引來寫而已。而且，Wikipedia成功嘅原因係人人都寫，你可以揀寫，又或者揀唔寫。你鍾意放時貢獻你嘅時間響邊隻語言維基。與其花咁多討論呢講完又講，不如去寫下文。 HenryLi 08:10, 16 六月 2006 (UTC)

  Henry, of course I am serious about this discussion. I already have two registered accounts with Wikipedia, one in the English version and the other in the Chinese version, so I don't feel the need for more Wiki accounts. Furthermore, I believe the registration of an account on the Cantonese Wiki equates to my endorsement of the edition, which would be counter-productive for my arguments. I will sign the comments with my English account from now on.

I'm not sure what do you refer to as the "consensus" between Commonwealth English and American English, but my point was that you don't see Wiki users creating separate British and American Wiki versions. Those two types of English would be considered dialects (even though they belong to different political entities) and thus do not deserve separate Wiki versions. You repeatedly state that distinction between language and dialect is nonexistent, except those imposed by politics. Politics is one of the factors defining a language, but not the only one. I would say that the argument of identical written forms of Chinese characters (never mind about the simplified vs. traditional characters, which is clearly political) is not without merits. That should be especially relevant here given that Wikipedia is a form of written communication rather than an oral one.

I use "(scientific) publications" as an example partly because that's what I am most familiar with (I am a biologist). But you can also find examples in everyday life communications. I assume that you are from HK. If so, you should remember (or currently know, depending on your age) the Chinese compositions you had to write in secondary school. The colloquial writing style and wording in Cantonese Wiki will surely give you a failing grade in those classes. That's just part of technical writing skills for appearing professional. Unless you tell me that Wikipedia is no more than a 八卦杂誌 (celebrity gossip magazine), professionalism in language delivery should be one of its aspects.

It sounds like you are saying that this discussion is meaningless. I disagree since it concerns the legitimacy of this whole version. In any case, I am merely voicing my opinion, seeing it's a "Free Encyclopedia". I'm not so naive to believe that my comments can result in the reversal of what has been done with Cantonese Wiki. But I do know that there are others who share my view point. Pseudotriton 68.229.152.169 23:39, 18 六月 2006 (UTC)

  的確, 百科全書要用嘅語言應該畀人覺得佢係專業; 不過, 廣府話係咪就唔可以專業呢? 好明顯唔係. 喺香港中文大學入面, 好多講師都會用廣東話來教一啲好專業嘅知識. 咁就證明左講廣東話唔等同唔專業. 你可能會話, 佢地講之嘛, 又唔係寫. 咁我可以好肯定咁話畀你聽, 佢地當中有準備講稿嘅人一定有啲會用廣東話直接寫稿. 其實與其話用廣東話寫稿係一種唔專業嘅行為, 不如話為左令到人地覺得你專業而用"標準漢語", 其實即係北方話來寫稿係一種更加唔專業嘅行為. 因為人地話你兩句唔專業就唔繼續做落去, 咁就真係唔專業啦. 一個人講野或者寫野專唔專業, 睇嘅唔係佢用咩語言, 而係佢講啲野有無料, 精唔精闢, 獨唔獨到. 我地可唔可以放低 "維基百科一定要係用眼睇嘅" 呢個成見, 然後用睇說話嘅態度去睇呢件事呢? --翹 仔 06:08, 19 六月 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the example given by Deryck (翹仔) is one of spoken communication. Most languages distinguish between spoken and written formats, and this is particularly true for Chinese. Let me give you two analogies. 1)Almost every English speaker uses contractions (haven't, don't, I'm, etc.) when he/she speaks, including for professional presentations. However, such contractions are totally unacceptable for formal writing, from scientific publications down to high school term papers. 2)In what Deryck refered to as "標準漢語", which he errouneously equated to "北方話", writing in northern dialectal colloaquial is equally objectionable. Most people in HK are probably unaware that Beijing dialect (北京话) is not equivalent to mandarin (普通话). The former contains lots of colloquial just like Cantonese that cannot be incorporated into formal writing. When trying to communicate in a professional manner, the presentation style is as important as the content that's been presented. I don't see how one can suggest stop treating Wikipedia as a form of written communication which is "read by the eye" since that's exactly what Wiki is. Pseudotriton 68.229.152.169 02:07, 23 六月 2006 (UTC)

  我自己都係修普通話嘅, 知道普通話同埋北京話係唔同嘅. 不過, 我地一定要注意, 普通話 (又或者即係我之前講嘅"標準漢語") 係由北京話變化出來, 為左方便全中華民族一齊學而存在嘅變種, 語音上根本就係北方話. 而且普通話某程度上比廣東話或者北方話自由度更大, 因為普通話同時兼容北方語系嘅詞語, 例如 "主心骨" (解 "可靠嘅人", 廣東人應該唔識), 又可以用南方語系嘅詞語, 例如 "炒魷魚". 其實無論廣東話又好, 普通話又好, 北京話都好, 全部都係講出來嘅語言. 而手寫同口講嘅語言其實又互相影響. 當我地寫緊語體文嘅時候, 我地唔通唔會寫任何方言詞? 絶對無可能, 因為書面語本來就係由口語變化出來. Pseudotrition兄以為我將北方話同標準漢語等同左應該係一個誤解, 我想表達嘅標準漢語個 "標準" 本來就係北京話變化出來 (可以睇下五四歷史, 嗰陣時啲文章好鍾意用個 "係" 字, 就好似粵語維基咁款), 所以佢語言學上算係北方話嘅一個變種. 我咁講, 目的係想話就算"標準漢語"都係深受方言影響. --翹 仔 17:28, 23 六月 2006 (UTC)
    I agree. Wu Dai-You (THE teacher of Yang Chen-Ning) used the word"係" in his physics textbooks.129.49.88.119 2006年8月5日 (六) 19:30 (UTC)

最後想講一樣嘢：正如user:Lorenzarius，一個資深嘅sysop講過，維基嘅哲學就係作者要盡一切辦法修改自己嘅作品以形合讀者嘅需求，所以嘅然meta上面嘅實驗證明粵語維基百科會有讀者，我哋就應該寫。--翹 仔 11:52, 1 7月 2006 (UTC)

## [編輯] 粤语维基有存在嘅必要么？

识讲粤语嘅读者绝大多数都识睇国语版嘅文章，咁未必睇得明白粤语版嘅文章，岂不是多此一举！而且（亻巨）哋所用嘅粤语汉字五花八门，比如同一个词有人写“嗰度”，有人写“果度”，有人写“嗰哚”。仲有就系：“而家”有人写“宜家”，到底边一个先系啱嘅呢？

—之前未簽名嘅留言係由125.171.192.85 (留言 • 貢獻) {{subst:#if:|響|}}所加入嘅。

來睇嘅人梗係識睇啦，唔識睇嘅人就唔會來睇啦，就係咁簡單。異體，異寫本來就係語言文字嘅本質。就好似英文色彩一字，你話colour啱定係color啱。而硫磺一詞，係sulphur啱定係sulphur啱?以前中文你就爾或者汝，咁你話你啱定爾定汝啱？ HenryLi 13:28, 30 7月 2006 (UTC)

  果度一定錯。果--> /gwoh/ , 但係所謂「嗰度」, 第一個字(應該寫成個, 唔需要口字邊)的確係讀成 /goh/, 唔同架……--Garytse 08:29, 31 7月 2006 (UTC)

  要用書面語的維基人反轉頭用粤语編寫, 相信好多人都有心無力. 但不同中文水平編寫不同的維基, 卻非常合理. 正如ENGLISH 與 SIMPLY ENGLISH. 書面語維基人要努力, 粤语維基人都要努力, 要好頭好尾.--9old9 (202.86.176.169 10:29, 1 8月 2006 (UTC))

## [編輯] What?!

A Cantonese Wikipedia? No one writes or reads the way they speak. Where is the main area for discussing the validity of creating this wiki? --70.30.59.2 2006年8月3日 (三) 04:26 (UTC)

  你究竟寫緊乜？ HenryLi 2006年8月3日 (四) 07:15 (UTC)

    你依0的人好令人反感，唔識打中文就學喇，兩班人都係中國人又識中文...

你明唔明所謂"國際語言"係咩意思呀﹖59.149.91.57 2006年10月18日 (三) 10:43 (UTC)

## [編輯] 我们为什么不需要粤语Wiki (Why we do not need a Cantonese Wiki)

  Jianglong 2006年8月6日 (日) 16:41 (UTC) —之前未簽名嘅留言係由194.125.97.61 (留言 • 貢獻) 所加入嘅。

### [編輯] 语言和方言，口头语言和书写语言 (Language and Dialect, Spoken Language and Written Language)

Yes, to a certain degree, I agree that Cantonese is a different language from Mandarin, as speakers of the two languages cannot understand each other at all if they never learn the other language. This is different from the relationship between Beijing Hua and Mandarin. While although there are also a lot of differences, Beijing Hua, as well as, say, Liaoning Hua, is still just a dialect of Madrain, since a Beijing Hua speaker who never speaks Liaoning Hua can understand a Liaoning Hua speaker very well and vice versa. When linguists tell whether it is a language or a dialect, they consider the mutual understandability. Therefore, most linguists consider the Chinese language as a family of different languages, which includes Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, etc.

But the point is, all these languages share the same writing system, which, as a non-phonetic one, makes this possible. You might think Cantonese is quite different from the others because in addition to the common writing system, it has its own special writing system as well. That's true. Cantonese is special. But it is only special in way people use it, not in itself. Every other Chinese language deserves a special writing system of its own considering that they all have quite different pronunciations for the same words. And some young people are now actually developing these writing systems (eg. Shanghainese, which is a dialect of Wu), especially on the Internet. Cantonese speakers created a number of characters that don't exist in the standard Chinese writing system. But again, every other Chinese langauge deserves a special set of characters as well. In one word, Cantonese, as a language, is no different from any other Chinese language. And although Written Cantonese is far more popular, it is still very informal like Written Shanghainese. We don't write laws in Written Cantonese. And we don't write academic papers in Written Cantonese, do we?

So, we might say, we have a number of spoken Chinese languages and a single formal standard writing system.

### [編輯] 共享还是不共享 (To Share or Not to Share)

问题是，我们需要一个单一的共享的Wikipedia还是针对不同的中文口头语言有不同的Wikipedias? 我想答案很明显：一个单一的Wikipedia. 因为 The question is, do we need a single shared Wikipedia for all Chinese speakers or a number of Wikipedias for speakers of different spoken Chinese langauges. I think the answer is obvious - a single shared one. Because

1. 这更有效率。It is more efficient. 我们为什么不一起工作？我们可以写一个更好的Wikipedia，它可以给我们更多帮助。我想知道你怎么创建粤语条目。如果你从标准中文“翻译”的话，有必要吗？如果你自己写，为什么不用标准中文写让上亿的更多的人可以理解？Why don't we all contribute to a single Wikipedia? We can make it better and it can help us more. How do you create articles in the Cantonese Wikipedia? If you translate them from Mandarin articles, why bother? If you write articles by yourself, why not write in standard Chinese so that billions more people can understand them?
2. 而且这是可行的。It is doable. 一个能读写粤语书写的人，一定也能读写标准中文，不是吗？If you can easily read and write Written Cantonese, you certainly can also easily read and write standard Chinese.

      - Dear Anonymous, In that case, why do we need WIKIPEDIA in various languages at all? Why don't we all write in English? (Or, at least, write all the mathematics and physics articles in English? ) Hillgentleman 2006年8月6日 (日) 18:02 (UTC)

          - That's because we don't have an international standard langauge (or a standard writing system at least) that everyone in the world masters. But the fact is, anyone who masters Written Cantonese masters standard Chinese as well and his or her level in standard Chinese shouldn't be lower than his or her level in Written Cantonese. Written Cantonese is an informal writing system. And Cantonese does share the same writing system as other spoken Chinese langauges (such as Wu etc.) in the same degree as others do. This is quite different from a family of languages with phonetic writing systems. Such a non-phonetic writing system has a great advantage actually, hasn't it? Why don't we use it? --Jianglong 2006年8月7日 (一) 12:16 (UTC) —之前未簽名嘅留言係由194.125.53.128 (留言 • 貢獻) 所加入嘅。
              1. Jianglong, Using Guong Dong Wha I can say the same thing with 30% fewer words than when I use National Speech.
              2. It is a fact that we have forgotten many ancient words. That is why we sometimes make them up anew. If you don't like that, let me remind you that Beijing people also make up their own words. I believe "Hu Tong" is not of Chinese origin.Hillgentleman 2006年8月7日 (一) 16:55 (UTC)

                  - Hillgentleman, why don't you write 30% more words and get a billion more readers without losing even a single one? And to be honest, I don't think Written Cantonese is as efficient as you said. Even if that's true, think about ancient Chinese. It is far more efficient than modern Chinese but it was replaced by the latter. Sorry but I didn't get the point of 2. Jianglong 2006年8月8日 (二) 03:26 (UTC)
      - Very often a student learns better by reading multiple sources of information, WHEN THERE IS NO ONE SINGLE BEST WAY OF DESCRIBING SOMETHING. Wouldn't it be great if one could read all three Yued Yu, National Chinese, and English articles, which supplement each other?Hillgentleman 2006年8月6日 (日) 18:08 (UTC) —之前未簽名嘅留言係由213.202.167.38 (留言 • 貢獻) 所加入嘅。

          - I really don't think Cantonese Wikipedia works this way. Look at those Cantonese Wikipedia articles. Aren't they almost the same as those of standard Chinese version? I don't believe that there are so many differences between Written Cantonese and standard Chinese that one of them often describes things better than the other. And more importantly, if it's just a matter of source instead of language, an integrated source is obviously better than multiple separate sources. --Jianglong 2006年8月7日 (一) 12:16 (UTC)
              - Dear Jianglong, I write my own articles.Hillgentleman 2006年8月7日 (一) 16:41 (UTC) —之前未簽名嘅留言係由194.125.53.128 (留言 • 貢獻) 所加入嘅。
                - Good. Would you tell me the reason why you don't write it in standard Chinese? Jianglong 2006年8月8日 (二) 03:26 (UTC) —之前未簽名嘅留言係由213.202.167.38 (留言 • 貢獻) 所加入嘅。
              - On the other hand, some of the zh.wikipedia.org articles are translations from en.wikipedia.org.Hillgentleman 2006年8月7日 (一) 16:41 (UTC)
                - I have no problem with translated articles. Not at all. There are a huge number of Chinese speakers in the world who can't read English and vice versa. But as I said earlier, everyone who can read and write Written Cantonese can read and write standard Chinese in the same level. While at the same time, most people who can read and write standard Chinese find it kinda difficult to read Written Cantonese. If there was an international written language that everyone in the world could read and write as well as their native languages, we would have only a single Wikipedia, wouldn't we? Jianglong 2006年8月8日 (二) 03:26 (UTC) —之前未簽名嘅留言係由213.202.167.38 (留言 • 貢獻) 所加入嘅。

                - The hangman article is one of the example that translated from English Wikipedia, and when I wrote, there's no article in Chinese version, meanwhile, somebody put this article without any modification into the Chinese Wikipedia. In my opinion, I am not suggesting users to translate the article from the Chinese Wikipedia directly with a little modifications. A good article should have some contents that is exclusive to the Cantonese language. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 2006年8月7日 (一) 17:06 (UTC)
                  - Shinjiman, I am sure that's a perfect translation and I love the article. But (as a native Chinese speaker) I had to read the English version to understand it clearly. I guess if you translate the next article to standard Chinese, Cantonese speakers could still read it easily just as this one and a lot more people (like me, but perhaps cannot read English) could understand it as well. Do you find it more difficult to translate English to standard Chinese than to Written Cantonese? If not, are you willing to do me a favor?Jianglong 2006年8月8日 (二) 03:35 (UTC) —之前未簽名嘅留言係由213.202.167.38 (留言 • 貢獻) 所加入嘅。
                    - Jianglong, I am a native Chinese speaker (note that the Chinese means Cantonese, not Mandarin). As most of time I think the words in Cantonese, While I translate from English to Chinese words, I need to think that in Cantonese, then change into Chinese. Also there's some people says that Chinese means Cantonese in Hong Kong or Macau. So there's no point to argue that the existence of the Cantonese Wikis or not. Jianglong, please sign your comment using 3 tides (Username or IP) or 4 tides (Username or IP, and the time). --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 2006年8月8日 (二) 11:27 (UTC)
                    - And note that there's also have slightly differences between the Cantonese grammar and Mandarin grammar, like 「我而家去食啲嘢先」(in Cantonese) is the same meaning of 「我現在先去吃點東西」 (in Mandarin), translated into English means "I will going to eat something first". Like this grammarical usage which cannot used in Mandarin. In the Chinese language wikis, even the grammar like this are impossible to be implemented using the Language Converter. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 2006年8月8日 (二) 11:35 (UTC)
                      - Fair enough. I'm OK with Cantonese Wikipedia if there are a number of people like you finding it more difficult to use standard Chinese writing system (even just a little bit). I don't have an account on Cantonese Wikipedia and it seems that I can't logon with accounts on Wikipedias of other languages, so I guess I can't use three or four tides to sign. - Jianglong, 2006年8月8日 (二) 12:45 (UTC) —之前未簽名嘅留言係由213.202.167.38 (留言 • 貢獻) 響所加入嘅。
                        - Currently all the Wikimedia projects have a seperated login accounts, if you cannot login here, you can create a account yourself. (Why don't consider to create a account here?) However a single login system will be available soon so each user can login to all Wikimedia projects with a single username and password. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 2006年8月8日 (二) 14:46 (UTC)

      - P.S. Whilst you are arguing over this, Min Nam Wha[[3]], with only 222 users, has reached the 1800+ mark.Hillgentleman 2006年8月6日 (日) 18:24 (UTC)

          - I have no comment on that since there are a lot of Min Nam Wha speakers arguing that they are not Chinese and they do not wanna share anything with Chinese. --Jianglong 2006年8月7日 (一) 12:16 (UTC) —之前未簽名嘅留言係由194.125.53.128 (留言 • 貢獻) 所加入嘅。
              - Min Nam Wha and Guang Dong Wha are two version of Chinese. There are even more ancient forms of Chinese than the national speech. They resemble the Tang/Song Chinese pronunciation more than the National Speech does. Hillgentleman 2006年8月7日 (一) 16:41 (UTC)
                - Hey, my friend, I can't agree with you more. But some people out there hate to be Chinese and they hate to share ANYTHING with Chinese. They have political motives. Should I try to persuade them? I don't have that much time.Jianglong 2006年8月8日 (二) 03:26 (UTC) —之前未簽名嘅留言係由213.202.167.38 (留言 • 貢獻) 所加入嘅。
      - Gentlemen, If you have the heart, why don't you write a few more articles in zh.wikipedia.org ? They are currently ranked 12th, whilst ja.wikipedia.org is ranked 5th. Please don't argue. Anything you write here does not count. If each of us write three articles, zh.wikipedia will surpass ja.wikipedia.Hillgentleman 2006年8月7日 (一) 17:04 (UTC)
          - 磨刀不误砍柴工。What I am trying to do here is to persuade a group of great Wikiers who can and will write articles to write articles for zh.wikipedia.org. I am trying to convince them that we should unite and work together efficiently, and make our work more helpful. My point is, no one benefit much from an extra Cantonese Wikipedia while a lot of people would benefit if articles written in Cantonese were written in standard Chinese. OK, I am not going to argue with this any more. And thank you for all your replies. Thanks a lot! Jianglong 2006年8月8日 (二) 03:26 (UTC) —之前未簽名嘅留言係由213.202.167.38 (留言 • 貢獻) 所加入嘅。

我其實又唔介意人遊說人哋要做一樣嘢。不過我就覺得，呢類遊說係無用。假如我淨係中意食叉燒包，你係要叫我食漢堡包，我都唔會因為咁中意食漢堡包，唔去食叉燒包。每個人有佢自己嘅喜好，做乜係都要硬係人做乜你嘅喜好。每樣事都有佢存在嘅理由。成日見到有呢啲反對廣東話維基嘅文章，講來講去都係三幅被：中文維基唔夠人砌，要團結打低其他；廣東話只係可以用來講，唔可以用來寫，係無人會寫，無人會用，中文水準會低落，識寫廣東話都識中文啦云云。咁不如一次過響度講晒。

大佬呀，你估維基百科係用來比賽，超英趕美㗎咩，維基百科係畀大家唔使畀好貴價錢，自由得到知識，自由傳播知識。團結並唔係維基百科原則，自由先至係呀，唔好搞錯。我用乜嘢話來表達係我嘅自由，你用乜嘢話寫係你嘅自由，呢個先係思想自由表現。我之所以用廣東話，係因為呢隻語言可以好容易表達我要表達嘅嘢。限制人哋表達方式，就係限制人哋表達，個文明點會進步。你認為廣東話寫唔到，你家下咪睇到囉。響你生存嘅地方，你可能無乜廣東話作品，又或者你根本唔中意廣東話作品，呢個係你身處社會所限。語言係個人自由選擇，正如無人話一定要你用廣東話或者英文來寫。

近三十年來，有唔少論文係講關於廣東話，你亦都可以多讀關於廣東話文章，多啲認識乜嘢係廣東話。語言係唔停咁變，若然畀一百年前嘅人睇，今日中文維基啲中文一定係差到離晒譜，不知所云。如果要講話寫廣東話會寫中文差，其實都唔成理，因為自細學校教嘅係近代白話文寫法，再加上文言文，係識得分乜嘢係廣東話，乜嘢係白話文，乜嘅係文言文。廣東話寫作係因為佢本身係更加近人要表達嘅意思，更加生動活潑，呢個本來就係好自然。有時有啲人講話廣東話都係中文，但又抗拒廣東話寫入中文，成日就自相矛盾。既然用中文又綁手綁腳，咁不如分開好過喇。事實上每次都好嘥時間答呢啲常見問題，做乜唔寫多啲有建設性嘅嘢，成日煲埋啲無米粥呢？HenryLi 2006年8月14日 (一) 04:46 (UTC)

我好同意henry既講法, 仲有我唔明點解大家都係中國人, 傾計個時要寫英文? 同埋咩唔夠人砌個d好大喜功心態就收埋佢啦, 成日講埋d 咁既無聊野不如譯多幾篇野好過啦, 哂氣。 Meaningless 2006年10月28日 (六) 16:37 (UTC)

## [編輯] 香港維基媒體協會

香港維基媒體協會而家正搞緊初步的會員召募，歡迎有意加入的維基人在此簽名。同時，香港維基媒體協會籌備委員會將於日內舉行第一次會議，有意加入籌備委員會的維基人，可搵我了解詳情。希望大家能為推廣維基一齊努力。--encyclopedist (對話頁) 2006年8月31日 (四) 16:04 (UTC)

## [編輯] 總算有咗微軟出嘅香港粵語輸入法啦

從微軟Office 2007提取出來
用嘅係「香港語言學學會粵語拼音方案」，不過喺方便性上總是覺得比唔上微軟拼音輸入法呢~XD--翔風Sasuke☆有事搵我*^-^* 2006年11月26日 (日) 18:43 (UTC)

## [編輯] 漢語維基百科比較

我製作了漢語維基百科的比較，以表格的方式了解其他版本目前的發展。

漢語維基百科比較
版本 | 代碼 | 發展時間 | 條目數 | 條目平均長度 | 超過2k (%) | 參與者 編輯10次以上 | 上月編輯5次以上 | 上月編輯100次以上
中文 | zh | 68月(實際49月) | 106,495 | 2,913b | 12% | 5,145人 | 1,527人 | 194人
閩南語 | zh-min-nan | 33月(之前尚有Holopedia.net時期) | 2,220 | 2,174b | 13% | 30人 | 14人 | 2人
粵語 | zh-yue | 8月(之前尚有test與Wikia時期) | 1,752 | 2,956b | 10% | 83人 | 29人 | 4人
吳語 | wuu | 3月(之前尚有test時期) | 239 | 4,023b | 16% | 14人 | 8人 | 3人
閩東語 | cdo | 3月 | 64 | 6,449b | 39% | 4人 | 2人 | 1人
文言文 | zh-classical | 3月 | 525 | 2,173b | 6% | 15人 | 11人 | 2人

--Jasonzhuocn...台灣社群 Blog15:39 2006年12月24日 (UTC)

## [編輯] 對......進行/作出

各位：「對.....進行」呀、「對....作出」呀、「對....實施」呀等語 好多時係廢字，入國語維基百科已經唔好，入廣東話就好礙眼。

- 例：對渠進行修改 ---->修改渠

--Hillgentleman | 書 2007年1月3日 (三) 23:38 (UTC)

- - 邊篇文係呢？有無 links 呀？--WikiCantona 2007年1月4日 (四) 00:38 (UTC)
    - 某啲政策頁，猶其來自國語維基嗰啲。我以前改過：[4]-- Hillgentleman | 書 2007年1月4日 (四) 16:31 (UTC)
    - [5]---Hillgentleman | 書 2007年1月4日 (四) 18:06 (UTC)
    - [6]-Hillgentleman | 書 2007年1月28日 (日) 19:00 (UTC)

## [編輯] 粤语维基有必要吗？

我不说粤语，但这里的东西能够轻松地看懂，而绝大部分粤语使用者也都理解汉字，同时能够轻松读懂普通话的语法。实在地说，粤语维基的词量和质量很难达到，别说超过中文维基的标准。个人看来，建立粤语（或吴语）维基就像在英语维基之外建立一个Ebonics维基一样，政治成分远大于学术或者实用性，浪费维基资源宣传一种观点。

I don't speak Cantonese, but I can easily understand articles presented here, meanwhile most Cantonese speakers are able to comprehend Chinese characters as well as the grammar of Putonghua/Standard Mandarin. To be fair, Cantonese Wikipedia can hardly ever reach, not to mention to surpass, the standard set by Chinese Wikipedia in either quatity or quality. In my opinion, the establishment of a Cantonese (or Wu-dialect) Wiki is like establishing an Ebonic Wiki aside from an English Wiki, and the motivation is rather political than academic or practical. It's essentially abusing wiki resource to promote certain political view.

—之前未簽名嘅留言係由71.222.205.241 (留言 • 貢獻) 響2007年1月13日 (六) 04:15所加入嘅。

  『同时能够轻松读懂普通话的语法』：我唔係好認同呢個講法，有啲人識講粵語唔代表佢哋一定會識普通話。--Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 2007年1月13日 (六) 04:43 (UTC)

  到我來搭嘴。既然閣下話識睇廣東話，我就唔另外譯文喇。

  用政治來諗嘢，先至會得個咁嘅結論。維基百科唔係為咗超英趕美，如果抱住呢種心態，要乜數先至做得嘅，就等如無英文咁嘅量同水準，乜維基都唔使做啦。咁講會唔會太過荒謬呢？廣東話維基量來講，亦都比百幾個維基百科多，質亦都至少有辭典目級，一啲都唔差。唔知有無聽過，羅馬都唔係一日就起好，乜事都要經過時間蓄埋蓄埋，先至有成果。呢度開咗一年都唔夠，當然同對上百零個維基百科無得比，不過，要有心做一定會做得好。維基百科係用知識角度來諗，知識越多元就越發達，廣東話維基係基於呢點而來，多樣變化亦都係現代人文嘅價值。我諗係閣下唔係好知乜嘢係廣東話，甚至無乜點掂過，先至會用政治角度來諗。廣東話響好多地方都流行，民間、學術、政府都有出好多廣東話作品。能夠貢獻到畀全人類，可以寫到嘢，一啲都唔浪費。HenryLi 2007年1月13日 (六) 05:29 (UTC)

廣東語太多虛詞, 根本是不能用作書面語; 而廣東話在書面上的應用就只有劇本這一範疇; 說真一點, 在中國, 百份之九十九的方言使用者是用語體文的; 所以書寫方言不但奇怪, 而且不倫不類. 其實有不少老資歷的維基人都反對成立廣東語維基, 只是外國的人不知道文化差異才令方言百科順利面世, 難聽的更可以說粵語維基是鬼村人強暴中國文化所產下的怪胎!!! 大家知道中國的文化為何團結? 因為有書同文這種進步的系統, 不像印度的那樣多方言文字, 設立方言類百科在某程度上可以說是開倒車, 希望看到這留言的好好去想.. --220.246.207.181 2007年2月13日 (二) 15:34 (UTC)

- 通常國語一句長廣東話一句成三分一。所謂書面語即白話文，北方話；北方話滲入好多北方少數民族元素，連背 「牀前明月光 」都唔順。--Hillgentleman | 書 ---2007年02月14號 (星期三), 格林尼治標準 14點03分56秒

- 我雖然是澳門人,但我寧去中文維基,也不去粵語維基,而粵語維基也不會興旺起來,絕大部份人也不會使用此粵語維基,內容粗俗不通,會降低智商與道德,粵語維基的實用性是0,只有你們編輯,而沒有人參觀--221.127.32.145 2007年2月24日 (六) 05:32 (UTC)
  - 咁你點解來睇？HenryLi 2007年2月24日 (六) 05:46 (UTC)

    又唔使睇得咁悲觀，有用嘅資料唔會因為用乜嘢語言寫而打拆扣，最重要係信唔信得過，其實只要喺出處同根據上做足功夫，廣東話維基亦同樣可以建立自己嘅聲譽同公信力，百科全書始終都係以資訊排第一位。另外又想講講，如果對廣東人文化有研究應該都知，廣東人性格特質係怕複雜，但唔等如廣東人唔好思考，結果形成廣東話有一樣特質，就係通俗，廣東人擅長將高深學問變得簡單通俗易明，而我個人會視呢一點作為廣東話維基嘅定位。- Hardys 2007年2月26日 (一) 13:51 (UTC)

- 評擊此語言的維基百科是多此一舉--221.127.195.141 2007年2月26日 (一) 08:46 (UTC)
  - 點解你又來"評擊"?HenryLi 2007年2月26日 (一) 09:02 (UTC)

## [編輯] 分流頁: 乜乜乜可以係/ 可以指

各位，啲分流頁，一係就話「911 （呢個詞語）可以指」； 一係就話「阿 sir （呢個人）可以係」。何謂「可以係指」？ 似唔多通。---Hillgentleman | 書 2007年1月15日 (一) 05:51 (UTC)

  廣東話係有呢種講法。HenryLi 2007年1月15日 (一) 06:17 (UTC)
  - 個「係」係虚字？--Hillgentleman | 書 2007年1月15日 (一) 06:27 (UTC)

## [編輯] Wikipedia:申請罷免管理員/RockLi

按Hillgentleman要求，喺呢度開個討論，其實要喺呢度討論點會唔得？不過，既然一開始已經開宗明義話唔太歡迎社群外人，我覺得成效就唔係咁大喇。有心人大可以將罷免投票嘅內容搬到呢度，但實則上大家已經開始走入對屹狀態，越描越黑，有冇發覺反而當事人都仲未講過嘢？！－－Stewart~惡龍 (講！) 2007年2月14日 (三) 23:19 (UTC)

- Stewart, 歡迎。歡迎參與。歡迎你嘅意見。而家呢道無罷免政策。各香港維基媒體協會籌委、中文維基百科人提出嘅意見唔夠罷免 RockLi。傾渠 手上嗰幾粒掣前，請傾掂罷免政策先。--Hillgentleman | 書 ---2007年02月15號 (星期四), 格林尼治標準 08點36分31秒

- - 中文維基百科嗰邊都研究緊長期唔活躍嘅維基人呢件事。其實我覺得當初選o既時候的確部份選舉係有d票數不足，無論係提名人定投票人都係啱啱上粵語維基，缺乏代表性，不過可能粵語維基本身用戶基數少有關。另外，希望盡快確立一套投票機制（投票不能解決所有嘢，但仍然係有效率的方法之一）。－－Stewart~惡龍 (講！) 2007年2月27日 (二) 17:22 (UTC)

## [編輯] 對粵語維基百科嘅意見

其實我當初反而比較支持「粵語維基詞典」，不過米已成炊，我也不會反對。之前好似見你哋話有一套用字、用詞嘅標準或者參考，請問有冇相關頁面？究竟用約定俗成嘅一套定係鼓吹用返正字？－－Stewart~惡龍 (講！) 2007年2月27日 (二) 17:22 (UTC)

  呢個Wikipedia:粵語本字，不景，所謂『用字、用詞嘅標準或者參考』係有一定嘅難度嘅：

1. 粵語唔似得書面語咁成熟，好多用字或詞，都係以日常生活為依歸，多次對用辭作討論：
   1. Talk:熒光幕
   2. Talk:挨晚
   3. 「分流」vs「搞清楚」
   4. Category_talk:明細模
2. 『本字』其實係樣新嘢，好多都係喺初楷，有得拗。參考：
   1. 學界都未拗完: e.g. 聽日，尋日
   2. 唔同地方有唔同嘅講法：例：【畀】係【俾】嘅本字[7][8]，有書話（[9] [10]）俾要用做被動詞係：使、把、令到嘅意思。你話點？！
   3. 問字。
3. 大力鼓吹本字會有問題，因為： en:Wikipedia:No_original_research 。
4. 我哋啲 Users 唔係多，下下叫叫人用乜乜 standards, reference。 嚇走人㗎。 就我嚟講，人家寫好，盡人事瞇改下。
5. 不景，『維基百科，自由嘅百科全書』，『自由』係重要過『標準』嘅。「約定俗成嘅」，「本字」都有人用，亦冇乜共識嘅，e.g. 【重】同【仲】。
6. 時間問題：唔否認標準同 policy 係有佢嘅重要，如一個 wikipedia 有標準，policy 同 FAQ，不個冇內容，會有人睇咩？時間係咁多，多寫啲，吸引多啲人同內容，標準同 policy 慢慢來。
7. RockLi 單嘢帶出一點：如果用寫篇嘢嘅時間來寫內容，出現嘅時候寫內容多啲，拗少啲，幾好呀。
8. 當一個 wikipedia 嘅存在價值成日受到質疑時，唔幫忙， policy 同 FAQ，標準喎都無乜意思啦，係唔係？！ →內容越少 = 存在價值越低。

  惡龍先生有時間同興趣嘅話，可以搞下 policy 同 FAQ，好多嘢眞係要做嘅。--WikiCantona 2007年2月27日 (二) 22:37 (UTC)--WikiCantona 2007年2月28日 (三) 04:20 (UTC) 加嘢。
    有關「粵語本字」，因為佢響Wikipedia空間名度，而唔係響文章空間名度，故此應該對en:Wikipedia:No_original_research嘅影響唔大；「粵語本字」係唔能夠作為一個絕對嘅政策來用；如果「粵語本字」重未可以有共識形成格式指引嘅話，仍然可以以一篇『論文』嘅格式響呢度保存住。但係我個人嘅意見就係最緊要正字為好。--Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 2007年2月28日 (三) 07:43 (UTC)

## [編輯] 支持粵語維基百科？！

大家上得嚟粵語維基百科就代表一定程度嘅認同或支持，有冇打算整一個Q&A頁解釋返點解粵語維基百科有存在嘅價值？例如：粵語作為書面語有邊啲應用面？粵語維基百科嘅使用需要？點解有咗中文維基百科仲要有粵語維基百科？

呢幾點成日畀人問，不如一次過答答上嚟嘅讀者。也可能說服到一啲用戶加入編輯嘅行列。－－Stewart~惡龍 (講！) 2007年2月27日 (二) 17:22 (UTC)

    惡龍先生不如將你嘅，同你知道嘅 questions 寫出嚟，作為一個 start。 參考：Wikipedia:對批評維基百科嘅回應--WikiCantona 2007年2月27日 (二) 22:47 (UTC)
      已加。希望大家能解答。－－Stewart~惡龍 (講！) 2007年3月4日 (日) 18:32 (UTC)
    唔知而家有冇軟件可以將粵語專有既字變成聲音讀出嚟，如果有可能會吸引到一啲人嚟參與(我自己對粵語維基百科嘅設立係中立，並不反對亦不支持)--Ahleong 2007年2月28日 (三) 09:03 (UTC)
      有。盲人有廣東話讀字軟件。HenryLi 2007年3月24日 (六) 17:58 (UTC)

## [編輯] I think it is stupid to include Cantonese in Wilipedia!

(由 Wikipedia talk:正嘢 搬過來, 當時修訂)

I think it is stupid to include Cantonese in Wilipedia! Cantonese is not main stream Chinese. I my selsf am Cantonese, I find it difficult to understand what these garbage is about.—之前未簽名嘅留言係由138.69.160.1 (留言 • 貢獻) 響2007年3月8日 (四) 22:05所加入嘅。

(搬完)

  I think your mother was stupid to give birth to you such a stupid so called Cantonese guy who can speak English well while finding his own mother language difficult to understand!--我哋越人 2007年3月9日 (五) 05:01 (UTC)
  - 我哋越人, Your opinion on 138.69.160.1's parent is irrelvant and inappropriate.
  - 138.69.160.1, Your are free to express your opinions, but please be objective and to the point.---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二千七年三月十號(星期六), 格林尼治標準 02點05分40秒

## [編輯] 《廣府話救亡》

近日到大型書店，見到新出咗一本叫《廣府話救亡》 ISBN 978-988-99623-0 2 嘅書，入面係以前王亭之曾發表過，批評何文匯 粵語正音運動嘅文章，輯印成書，幾有參考價值，值得推薦。參考網址 --✉Hello World! 2007年3月23日 (五) 15:54 (UTC)

- 多謝唔該。未睇曬，但其實每人都有所知有所唔知，唔可以全怪何文滙；渠提出、研究、普及呢的問題已經係大貢獻。---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二千七年三月二十三號(星期五), 格林尼治標準 16點38分35秒

## [編輯] 2007香港春聚通知

各位粵語維基人，您們好！

香港維基人春聚將於本年4月1日（星期日）舉行，現誠邀閣下參與。是次活動分為兩部份，分別是下午以「保護產權=保護創意？」為主題的諮詢會 和 傍晚時份的聚餐活動 ：

回應『在數位環境中保護知識產權』民間諮詢會

- 時間：14.30 (UTC+8)
- 地點：金鐘夏愨道12號美國銀行中心香港中文大學專業進修學院100室

傍晚聚餐

- 集合時間：17.30 (UTC+8)
- 集合地點：金鐘太古廣場 003號鋪，北京樓門外

  （註：是次活動將有來自台北及北京的資深維基人虎兒和User:Shizhao參與。）

報名及查看詳情請參看此頁！

聯絡人：encyclopedist、Stewart~惡龍

        請大家踴躍支持，積極參與！
        邀請你的維基人是：－－Stewart~惡龍 (講！) 2007年3月30日 (五) 08:33 (UTC)

## [編輯] 日文問題

- 由Wikipedia:詢問處#日文問題 ----->

點解響中文維基可以打日文，響粵語維基打就話我未翻譯好篇文？—之前未簽名嘅留言係由ultraman (留言 • 貢獻) 響２００７年４月９號所加入嘅。[11]

  答你嘅問題：唔關日文事，你寫嘅小澤瑪利亞嗰啲係國語 書面語，唔係廣東話，好似啲「的」呀，「是」呀咁啦，呢個係粵語 Wikipedia，用粵語㗎。--WikiCantona 2007年4月9日 (一) 08:26 (UTC)

<-----

---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二零零七年四月九號(星期一), 格林尼治標準 13點22分33秒

## [編輯] wikipedia:當年今日、當年今日

全部日期文都一式兩份（例：wikipedia:當年今日、當年今日 , wikipedia:當年今日/4月15號、4月15號），一份有Wikipedia: 空間名行頭，一份無，的連結就來來去去，我已經暈暈地頭。點解要咁做？可唔可以連正的呀？* :)---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二零零七年四月十五號(星期日), 格林尼治標準 07點45分57秒

  當年今日應該搬過去歷史紀念一覽(en:List of historical anniversaries)。--Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 2007年4月15日 (日) 09:45 (UTC)
  Wikipedia:當年今日嘅英文跨語言連結應該係en:Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries。--Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 2007年4月15日 (日) 09:47 (UTC)
    名唔係問題；當年今日都幾好聽兼有意思；問題係的誇曬空間名嘅連結，來來去去好麻煩。* :)---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二零零七年四月十五號(星期日), 格林尼治標準 21點12分16秒

由 "http://zh-yue.wikipedia.org../../../%E5%9F%8E/%E5%B8%82/%E8%AB%96/Wikipedia%7E%E5%9F%8E%E5%B8%82%E8%AB%96%E5%A3%87_%28%E9%9B%9C%E9%A0%85%29.html" 接收

分類: 維基百科社區論壇 | 去城市論壇 (消息)

##### Views

- 專題頁
- 討論
- 家下嘅版本

##### 交流

- 關於維基百科
- 社區大堂
- 城市論壇
- 詢問處
- 聯絡我哋
- 慷慨解囊
- 幫手

##### 搵嘢

##### 其他語言

- English
- 中文