Aren't "zh" (Chinese) and "zh-Hans" (Chinese, traditional script) the same language?

Hi,

While working on another project, we saw that parsing Chinese dates rarely works when the language zh-Hans, whereas it works fine with zh.

Example output:

Detecting text: 2024年6月1日
ja: 2024-06-01 00:00:00
zh: 2024-06-01 00:00:00
zh-Hans-HK: None
zh-Hans: None
zh-Hant-HK: None
zh-Hant: None

From what I understand about CLDR, Chinese (simplified) is the default locale for Chinese: https://st.unicode.org/cldr-apps/v#/zh_Hans//

In the dateparser source code, zh-Hans appears to be a subset of zh, sharing most translation tables but lacking simplification rules, which seems to cause the parsing failures.

I made a proposed change here: https://github.com/scrapinghub/dateparser/compare/master...Merinorus:dateparser:chinese-dates

Before submitting a PR, I’d like to confirm whether my understanding is correct.

Thank you!

Start by reproducing the Chinese date examples for zh, zh-Hans, zh-Hans-HK, zh-Hant, and zh-Hant-HK. Read the dateparser source around the zh-Hans translation tables and simplification rules, then compare the proposed chinese-dates change; done means the affected Chinese locales parse the demonstrated date consistently and tests cover the behavior.