Wikipedia talk:答批評

頁面內容唔支援其他語言。
出自維基百科，自由嘅百科全書
睇埋：wikipedia:意見

本文最初版本源自2006年8月17日 (四) 09:43 (UTC)嘅zh版維基百科，以GFDL發佈，最後５名編輯者係「笨笨的小B」、「Dean101 dean」、「百家姓之四」、「Shizhao」同埋「用心阁」。-- tonync (talk) 2006年8月17日 (四) 09:43 (UTC) 

 *WP:VPM, 20070712072116--->

很好奇地問[1][編輯]

「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

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

(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）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）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）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)

粤语维基有存在嘅必要么？[編輯]

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）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))

What?![編輯]

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)

「國際語言」就係比用唔同母語既人溝通既語言…有同一種母語卻用上「國際語言」就係白痴既行為124.244.107.246 2008年7月17號 (四) 13:14 (UTC)[回覆]

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

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。

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

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.

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

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)
  • 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)

粤语维基有必要吗？[編輯]

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)
    講真，我係香港人，我都係參與編輯中文維基。呢度限制啲人一定要全部廣東話咪唔慣囉，我諗各位都係香港人，澳門人。各位都可能慣咗用語體文去作文。用口語去作文就好鬼難，唔慣嘛。所以我既貢獻都係留喺中文維基。--Bananasims 2007年7月12號 (四) 06:53 (UTC)[回覆]
    Bananasims, 與其響度咁辛苦打咁多隻廣東字，不如去揾篇文修下－文章用字接近你用慣嘅國語。Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年七月十二號（星期四）格林尼治 07時05分53秒。

分流頁: 乜乜乜可以係/ 可以指[編輯]

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)

對粵語維基百科嘅意見[編輯]

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[4][5]，有書話（[6] [7]）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)

支持粵語維基百科？！[編輯]

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)

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

(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

不知所謂的粵語[編輯]

歸檔自Wikipedia:城市論壇 (提議)
  • 我發現粵語版維基百科的抄襲情況越來越嚴重，不少翻譯，其實只是將中文版的口語化，加減幾只字叫翻譯
  • 還有一些粵語問題，比如隨便一版，表面上是不會知道其真正意思，要自已按一下才知道，原來是隨機頁面
  • 隨機本是都可以是口語，為何更把它複雜化？
  • 比如楔位文章，楔字又有多少人會讀？之後的重未寫完嘅，我還以為重未寫完（從來未寫完）
  • 閂字太深奧，用執咗，結業等不是更好嗎?
  • 城市論壇？是不來無視電視那種？維基百科何時變成維基城市？
  • 正嘢？有多正路？難道其它的是垃圾？用特色文章代替不是更好嗎？
  • 說明書？大哥，它可不是一本書啊！為何不用使用方法呢？
  • 慷慨解囊？誰慷慨解囊？維基百科慷慨解囊給編者？還是其他人？
  • 有乜嘢連結來呢度好難聽，難道不能用其它字代替？
  • 維基友，應該用維基人，X友是較為不雅用語，有貶義成份，比如你條友仔，維基友的意思，我應不用多說
  • 把可以是口語的口語口語化，變成一個不知所謂的百科全書，真的百科全輸，看得到，可能影響自己語文水平。

--dragoon17c 2008年5月28號 (三) 14:48 (UTC)[回覆]

老友，一直以來，我哋粵語維基呢度，有過好多國語白話文來寫嘅批評。大家來來去去，一係就問點解我哋要「抄」人中文維基，(唔記得維基媒體其實鼓勵大家翻譯，促進多語言環境)；另一方面又問我地點解唔用同中文維基一模一樣嘅字。老友，到底係粵語維基，梗係用地道嘅粵語字啦。
你問咗好多問題，我試答幾條：：你問點解用隨便唔用隨機－其實有人建議用是但、求其一頁－ 以我所知，隨機呢個字來自電腦時代"RANDOM"嘅中譯，而機即係你架電腦，反而隨便就係地度嘅粵語甚至中文。「閂埋」個盒亦係地道嘅粵語。 中文維基用"特色"來譯"featured"，其實唔多對路。我地絶對無必要跟。書未必係一本本釘埋嘅。好多電器嘅說明書都係得一張紙。* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年五月二十八號（星期三）格林尼治 15點08分34秒。 2008年5月28號 (三) 15:08 (UTC)[回覆]

Template:回應地道粵語字?恐怕只是香港地道粵語字!廣州人認同嗎?深圳人認同嗎？

  • 正如你所說，隨便一版，是誰隨便一版？電腦？讀者？沒有主語呀！正如你所說，隨機，機字指電腦，有主語，意思明確！你說話或寫文章能否欠缺主語？當然不能！這可是中文，不是文言文，文言文可以沒有主語，但中文卻不能
  • 你說"特色"來譯"featured"，其實唔多對路，那你可以提出意見，為何你不去做？那應該用甚麼？特色兩字已經突出其重要性，有特色之處，一看即明！是日正文跟？日日都是該條目，不如叫每月正文更為適！而且正文有另一個意恩，我樓上已提及
  • 說算是一張紙，都可以是書，書的材料只不過多幾張紙。而維基百科是電子書，不是書，電子書跟書有分別的！樓上那位簡直是強詞奪理--dragoon17c 2008年5月28號 (三) 15:38 (UTC)[回覆]
dragoon17c君，你係咪誤會太深呢？定係好憎廣東話？你嘅批評係近乎無理取鬧。粵語維基百科好多文，一樣畀人抄襲去中文維基百科度，你發現相似情況一啲都唔奇。話時話，你唔係好理解中文字嘅意思。你知唔知【書】字點解，【文書】、【家書】、【通知書】係咪一本本？【友】字係不雅用語？知心友、朋友、書友仔又有幾不雅？眨唔眨係睇語氣，一個好嘅字，語氣唔好都可以變壞。講真，你嘅態度就好似我中意京劇，就唔准你做大劇；我中意聽流行曲，就唔畀你聽古典音樂。你咁樣有違維基精神喎。不如花多啲時間寫下文章，以貢獻替憎恨。好唔好？HenryLi 2008年5月28號 (三) 16:08 (UTC)[回覆]
好多時候，我問人家問題時，大部份只回答一小部份，而其它的不敢回答，為甚麼？因為他們不敢答，因為他們沒有辦法駁回我的說法，即是不夠薑。抄來抄去，除非你是原作者或主要貢獻者，否則不應在未得批准的情形下抄襲。試想一天，你的文章被另人在不通知你的情況下「翻譯」成粵語，你有何感受。粵語中X友Y友，無可否認是有貶意成份，而你所說的朋友，並不是粵語獨有的。另外，粵語一詞其實是書面語，沒有人會說「我的母語是粵語」，用廣東話，廣州話會比較好，而且粵語英文本來是Cantonese，而廣州英文舊稱Canton，即是廣東。我對粵語維基百科成立一向抱懷疑態度，擔心變成香港維基百科。試想想，粵語維基百科的價值在哪？有人會來粵語維基百科取資料嗎？會有人敢投入大量時間在粵語維基百科嗎？我想信大家都會選擇比較得體的中文維基百科？哪些字的寫法才是正確？重有還是仲有？粵語維基百科人難道看不懂中文？不如開多個客家話維基百科、英式英文維基、澳式英文、加式英文等等！我一向都有在維基百科貢獻，但不在粵語裡--dragoon17c 2008年5月29號 (三) 2:54 (UTC)
謝謝您的意見，維基媒體以GNU自由文檔協議(GFDL)下發表，利用 wiki 系統達到協作目的，因為維基媒體相信人多識廣，因此任何意見都是一種建設和貢獻，歡迎閣下多多指教，大家也在能力之內儘量跟進，無論如何非常感激 - Hardys 2008年5月29號 (四) 03:57 (UTC)[回覆]
▢dragoon17c君，原來真正想講係你嘅寫引咗來呢，所以咁火滾。我話過你知，我嘅文章，唔理係廣東話定英文，畀人抄過去中文維唔知幾多次啦，唔止文，我整嘅圖一樣響幾個維基出現，咁有乜問題呢？畀人引去第二個維基，係有人欣賞你寫嘅嘢嘛。我真係唔明你咁怕畀人用？再者，我寫得維基，就同意係用GFDL發表，即係我寫嘅嘢，可以自由畀人引用，人哋根本唔使通知我。如果你咁介意呢樣嘢，就唔應該放上維基百科度。正如我嘅相，做嘅圖，放得上commons，人哋都可以任用，個license已經話明唔使通知我。▢至於粵語個名，我哋都討論過改做廣東話，我都主張改㗎，耐何未有共識，未改得之嘛。▢中文維基百科，唔係成日都有維基友投訴，香港題目太多咩？咁唔通唔畀人寫香港題目喎？中文維基百科，咪又係太多講中港臺嘅嘢，咁係咪要用晒英文維基先夠平均？反正中港台學生都學過英文，咁中文維基又有乜價值？印度英語通行，唔通印度各文嘅維基都可以廢得？你話呢啲講法又通唔通？如果粵語維基無人投入時間，就唔會響二百五十五個維基百科之中，排八十六。按你嘅邏輯，係咪打後一百八十九個維基都廢得？查實，唔同語文嘅維基，有佢嘅文化價值，唔係少啲人講就唔畀做。▢話時話，真係有客家話維基百科，簡單英文百科，古英文維基百科，重有賓州德文維基百科。就算你好憎廣東話維基百科都好，都試下留意多啲，重有好多兄弟維基百科，唔係得嗰十二大維基百科。試下理解下，維基點解會支持唔同語文，維基百科嘅精神係點。▢最後，都係嗰句，將你嘅憎恨化做貢獻啦。HenryLi 2008年5月29號 (四) 15:54 (UTC)[回覆]
首先，要多謝你一啲有建設性嘅提議。若然你係中文維基嘅同一人，你亦寫過唔少嘢，唔似係搞搞震嘅 en:Troll_(Internet)。我會試吓答一答你嘅指控。
你咁寫『我發現粵語版維基百科的抄襲情況越來越嚴重，不少翻譯，其實只是將中文版的口語化，加減幾只字叫翻譯』
『抄襲情況越來越嚴重』 係你嘅印象定係有統計過先？有幾多篇係抄，幾多篇係寫嘅哩？
『其實只是將中文版的口語化，加減幾只字叫翻譯』有一部份的確係咁，我都好憎啲咁嘅文，如果，幾個星期都係咁，我哋會刪咗佢。
我間唔中都會吸啲文嚟譯吓㗎，不過唔係就咁改幾隻字，都要合粵語文法先得。可能粵語唔係你嘅母語，你唔知改粵語有時好難，寫過冇咁嬲。
若然你係中文維基嘅同一zh:user:dragoon17c，你嘅文一定係俾人抄過文過嚟，所以好鬼火滾。我譯/寫嘅嘢都有中文維基友攞去用，我都不知幾開心。你估狗屎垃圾都抄一餐咩。知識係攞嚟分響嘅，Wikipedia 嘅文知所以冇簽名囉。你寫咗就相當於同意GNU自由文檔協議(GFDL)，如果你覺得「你的條目」係屬於你嘅，咁你應該考慮去寫你自己嘅 blog 霸就。
你喺中維咁講：『Dragoon17c不滿香港現行的寡頭政治制度』，我唔明點解你嚟呢處搞「壟斷」，搞「語言霸權」呢？
粵語維基係有佢自己嘅路要行嘅，當然有好多改善嘅地方，有時間嚟幫下手。--WikiCantona 2008年5月29號 (四) 08:55 (UTC)[回覆]

有一個好重要的要點就係，粵語維基百科唔係中文維基百科嘅粵語版。粵語維基百科就係粵語維基百科自己，唔係話乜嘢都跟中文維基就係好嘅。 Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 2008年5月29號 (四) 15:56 (UTC)[回覆]

重有，可能係咪先前嗰位人兄重未知道乜嘢係叫做『共識』。好似『城市論壇』、『楔位文章』等嘅字都係先前嘅命名之中有共識之後先至會用嘅名來。閂字太深奧，即係呢位人兄個人係對呢個字嘅理解有困難喇，可以先請佢睇吓Wikipedia:粵語本字先。 Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 2008年5月29號 (四) 15:59 (UTC)[回覆]
【閂】字查實都幾常見，而且咁多年來都一直用。同嗰考據出來嘅字唔同。HenryLi 2008年5月29號 (四) 16:30 (UTC)[回覆]
我想討論的是，粵語維基百科的實用性在哪裡？粵語維基百科只供參考，觀看，但大部份人不會copy粵語維基百科的文章，因為實在太不得體，口語怎能寫在一本正經的百科全書裡？你也不可能用口語寫信，不可能用口語寫作文．．．當初大家反對成立粵語維基百科的主因便是這個。抄襲中文內容只是其次，最重要的是，它有存在價值嗎？。User:dragoon17c 2008年5月30號 (四) 10:28 (UTC)[回覆]
存在價值一問我響上面答咗，你睇返2008年5月29號 (四) 15:54 (UTC)嘅回應吖。HenryLi 2008年5月30號 (五) 11:46 (UTC)[回覆]
閣下講咗兩樣嘢：(1) 唔實用，大部份人唔抄嘅嘢，就冇存在價值。(2)「口語」係唔可以寫嘅。
(1) 咁，好多中文維基嘅文，唔實用，冇人抄，按閣下嘅 logic，就冇存在價值喇？咁，我睇閣下寫唔少嘅飛機嘅文一啲都唔實用，冇人抄或理會，按閣下嘅 logic，都冇存在價值㗎啦？咁，請問閣下有幾多維基嘅文，按閣下嘅 standard，係有存在價值嘅哩？
(2)「口語」，你所謂嘅「中文」最初又唔係基於「北方口語」，我提議閣下去睇吓：粵語/wikipedia:粵語本字/zh:官话/zh:我手寫我口/zh:粵語白話文/方言/zh:方言/zh:標準漢語發展史/en:Power (philosophy)/en:diglossia。簡單講，一種話可唔可寫係一個歷史過程，權力嘅互動，多種話以前係講得唔寫得，而家乜都得。
希望閣下諗吓，點解你嘅母語就唔寫得出嚟，點解你會話自己一出世就識嘅話唔「正經」，唔「得體」，呢啲直頭係自我價值、文化嘅否定。--WikiCantona 2008年5月30號 (五) 18:16 (UTC)[回覆]
我並沒有否定口語是不能寫出來的，只是口語不及書面語得體。不實用不代表它沒有用處，這個世界上有不少東西都是不實用，我也沒有否定粵語維基百科是０價值，只是實用性較低。不過，粵語維基百科成立超過兩年，條目數量仍不足一萬，條目比較偏向香港部份，當中每月編輯超過100次的人不足10個，足以證明大家有多投入。如果以廣東省一半人口來計算，再乘以1%，即是3萬人，3萬人有電腦會粵語知道維基百科，卻不去投入參與，究竟原因何在？。dragoon17c 2008年5月31號 (五) 02:58 (UTC)[回覆]
不如你諗清楚你到底係唔鍾意啲乜嘢先再講啦，如果你根本就只要係粵語都唔鍾意，咁再多講都無意思。我都會同意，目前嘅粵語維基百科係重有好多缺點，但大家都好努力去改善，我相信佢係向住一個正確方向發展，我希望時間可以証明到，粵語維基百科嘅存在價值同佢獨特嘅重要性。- Hardys 2008年5月31號 (六) 03:52 (UTC)[回覆]
老友，「唔食煙」係正當粵語，反而「別笑大人個口啦」屬於所謂嘅「三及第」文。* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年六月二號（星期一）格林尼治 09點56分46秒。
不是正不正當問題，而是名稱問題，你也不會開一個新條目叫佛陀出世日、國家生日、耶穌出世日之類的節日名稱？dragoon17c 2008年6月2號 (五) 12:42 (UTC)[回覆]
閣下未免太無聊。一個人曉乜嘢係維基百科嘅話，就明白響維基理念同政策之下，有能力就可以寫，可以改。咁抗拒維基百科意念，就唔好嘥時間。HenryLi 2008年6月4號 (三) 14:49 (UTC)[回覆]
未知我能如何改寫[8]呢？- —之前未簽名嘅留言係由118.140.6.253 (留言 • 貢獻) 所加入嘅。
Wikipedia:唔好喂粗 --WikiCantona 2008年6月5號 (四) 13:59 (UTC)[回覆]
老實說，不不明白甚麼是喂粗，簡直是一個新詞彙！Wikipedia:唔好喂粗內容，有些地方我看極也不明白，甚麼是打編輯交？創意粗凌？唔好喂佢？有啲粗士住天橋底，但住天橋底嘅未必係粗？反轉戰士？如果粵語維基百科不甘願受善意批評，我也不會再浪費時間！我在粵語維基的帳戶也不會再登入--118.140.6.253 2008年6月5號 (四) 15:40 (UTC)[回覆]

118.140.6.253呢位仁兄，你用個IP曾經有破壞紀錄。我好懷疑你係假扮dragoon17c，如果真係，你就真係太卑鄙。如果篇嘢係有保護，以dragoon17c嘅閱歷，一定知去有關討論頁，同人合作傾點改，而唔係響度東拉西抯搵嘢來嘈。HenryLi 2008年6月5號 (四) 21:11 (UTC)[回覆]

歸檔完畢

此處簡單的英文文法錯誤。[編輯]

引用： 問：「我記起小學作文時如果我用，"我係"，"我響呢住" 呢啲字眼會畀老師扣好多分數。粵語只係講嘅，同 formal writing 有好大差別。For exmaple, in English encyclopedia, you would not be seeing words such as "gotcha", "The spider is gonna to...". 」 gonna即going to口語說法，後接to應為多餘。

由「https://zh-yue.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:答批評&oldid=849836」收