Please note actions by [[User:Liuxinyu970226]]

FWIW, admins on zhwiki have gradually developed a knee-jerk reaction to bad/unfavourable translations. We just override the betawiki string locally and call it a day. The discussions here on the topic of glossaries or styles or anything would all get to the point of "we don't care what zhwiki uses", and thus we are forced to recreate the wheel again and again.

I'm not "don't care what zhwiki uses"-ing, the case you point looks like under User:Cwlin0416

Wondering if this user can also saying sorry to above? Also, is consensus really stabilizable (c.f. MassMessage translations)?

The terminology can be (mostly) stabilized, especially the "whom to take, tw or hk" split seen in zh-hant translations. (I am quite happy that no zh-SG speakers have argued with zh-CN speakers to date, by the way.)

As a side note, keeping translations from both sides in that fictional "whom to take from" table would be helpful for custom install-time language splitting by tools like OpenCC (it does hk-tw conversion too), thus providing a solution for current "merged hant" problem.

"The terminology can be (mostly) stabilized" haven't you seen the MassMessage example? Per history, the MassMessage was having these translations:

• 大量信息发送者/大量消息发送者 (mainly provided by me)
• 群发消息者/群發消息者 (provided by @飞舞回堂前:, a Wuu Chinese user)
• 大量訊息寄件者 (provided by @Cwlin0416:)
• 大量訊息發送者 (provided by @Bowleerin:)

Is this still stabilized? If still yes, then let you see the history of MediaWiki:Last/zh-hans where 11 diffs about "prev" happened.

"Can be" means possible with some work. For stabilizing things across communities, that "work" means communication...

(By the way is this yet another terminology problem?)

Thanks Jimmy Xu for letting us know; we certainly have to make this locale more stable.

As far as I know, Cwlin0416 has stopped edit warring. If some user edit wars without having had some discussion, just report the fact here and I'll remove their translating rights for the time being. (To make an example, Arthur2e5 above has explained his reasons well enough for the mentioned translations.)

If translators are split only/mostly according to their linguistic background (Taiwan, Hong-Kong and what not), then we should seriously (re)consider giving each block their locale. Is this the case?

Good point! Well, zh-hk is actually available: https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Special:Translate/core?group=core&language=zh-hk&filter=%21translated&action=translate , so the question is just zh-tw?

The thing with zh locales is that one would really like to use automation given that most differences come not from sentence structures, but from word choices. Split locales mean split storage, and as long as there is some newcomer is obsessed with getting the percentage to 100%, we get whole lots of redundancy.

A relevant system where mostly automated conversion across zh variants is MediaWiki's LanguageConvertor.

I don't think LanguageConverter should be implemented here, since it'd be more and more tricky (please, believe me, /zh pages are really bad in MediaWiki.org as per phab:T106131#1481796)

I should have clarified that I am not talking about the mediawiki.org site but the software component.

Yes, the commonly-used form of LC which operates on nearly-parsed wikitext is bad for most usages other than HTML documents. Yet this does not rule out the possibility of using a more constrained interface^[1] like a "dumb" LC (e.g. translate($text, $variant)), with a different text scanner passing text needing conversion to LC.

Some extra release-time work will be needed if TWN is used this way with language conversion, as it's unlikely that anyone would want to run some ./do_ui_language_generation.sh on what they have downloaded. Technical difficulties can be overcome as experiments and PoCs appear; it's mainly the consensus that needs to converge.

Notes

1. An interesting way of making LC HTML-dumb is through <pre>-{}-blah...</pre>.

As for the obsession with 100 %, it would be enough to make the entire language's messages "optional". I believe there is no such configuration yet, but it would possibly not be that hard.

To: @Nemo:, @Liuxinyu970226:, @Jimmy xu wrk:

I'm agree to had some discussion before edit, but there is no list about terminology which zh-wiki uses, currently one which is i made, all zh-wiki wants is do not edit any translation, all accuse from zh-wiki is i'm making vandalism. is this right?

I'm not intentionally to start edit warring. But difference between Simplified Chinese and Traditonal Chinese not only word but also region (Taiwan, Hong Kong). Before i edit Traditional Chinese, there is much translations is not suitable because translations are just following Simplified Chinese, "even some translations are only for zh-wiki". Although change translation will affect some documentation which zh-wiki currently use, this is helpful to MediaWiki Traditional Chinese users growth.

MediaWiki is not only for Wikipedia but also open source project, MediaWiki's user not only Wikipedia. I'm not "don't care what zhwiki uses", but i'm care Mediawiki Traditonal Chinese users uses more than zh-wiki.