docs: add Localization section stating the separate-repo policy - #204
Open
jiji262 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
docs: add Localization section stating the separate-repo policy#204jiji262 wants to merge 1 commit into
jiji262 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
jiji262
force-pushed
the
docs/localization-note
branch
from
August 1, 2026 15:03
4a6e0b4 to
cd46675
Compare
Non-English variants come up repeatedly on the tracker (blader#138, blader#163, blader#194, blader#203) and the README has no answer, so each asker opens a new thread and users looking for their language have no entry point.
jiji262
force-pushed
the
docs/localization-note
branch
from
August 2, 2026 02:47
cd46675 to
dc9e6c7
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Adds a short
## Localizationsection to the README, pointing to the Simplified Chinese adaptation. Four lines, one file, no changes toSKILL.mdor the 33 patterns.python3 scripts/validate-package.pypasses.Why
Non-English variants are a recurring question on the tracker (#138 Spanish, #163 French, #194 Traditional Chinese, #203 Simplified Chinese) and the README says nothing about it, so every asker opens a new thread and readers looking for their language have no entry point. The wording follows your answer in #163: localized variants stay as separate community repositories, so each language evolves without adding duplicate runtime authorities here.
Background on the linked project
Full details are in #203. The short version: it is an adaptation rather than a translation, because a literal port of the pattern list actively damages correct Chinese.
“”are the standard in Simplified Chinese (GB/T 15834-2011), not a tell. That slot detects full-width/half-width punctuation mixing instead, which is the real machine fingerprint.——is legitimate punctuation for explanation and topic shifts, so only overuse, paired parenthetical dashes, and mis-typesetting (single-width—, or-/--standing in for a dash) are flagged.被-constructions instead.Net: 24 patterns map one-to-one, 8 collapse into 4, 1 is dropped, and 8 Chinese-specific patterns are added, for 36 total. The added patterns are sourced rather than invented, mostly from a 6,586-text parallel corpus study (CCL 2023, Beijing Language and Culture University): AI conjunction density runs about 3x human, modal-particle density about 1/5, and antithesis stacking about 6x.
Two additions may generalize past Chinese, since both came out of running "de-AI-ify this" on Chinese AI text without a skill and reading what went wrong:
MIT, with attribution to blader/humanizer kept in the LICENSE, README, and SKILL.md.
Disclosure
I maintain the linked project, so this is not a neutral contribution and you should weigh it as such.
I also kept the scope deliberately narrow: no fork directory, no table of other people's repos. #59 proposed a "Community Forks" table and you closed it as not matching first-party scope, and I did not want to re-litigate that. If a single third-party link still reads as out of scope, closing this is completely fine. The information lives in #203 either way, and I would rather the README stay yours than have my link in it.