Requests for new languages

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by LimoWreck (talk | contribs) at 18:45, 21 November 2005 (→‎West Flemish (5 support)). It may differ significantly from the current version.
Projects

This page is intended for discussing the creation of new language editions of existing projects. This is not the page to propose a new project.

The Wikimedia Foundation aims to facilitate the dissemination of knowledge in many different languages. Currently, wikis have been created in over 200 languages. If you would like to work in a language that does not yet have a wiki, you may request it here.

Procedure

There are several steps to follow if you would like to create a new language Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks or Wikiquote. The Wikimedia Commons and Wikispecies are multi-lingual projects, meaning that there are no separate editions for individual languages. The Wikisource project has its own page to request a new language.

  1. Peruse the complete list of Wikimedia projects. If the language you are looking for is not listed, look for very

similar languages. Your proposed language must be sufficiently different, in its written form, from any other already-created language.

  1. You must have an account here on the Meta wiki.
  2. Copy and paste the template to the new proposals section.
  3. Find the ISO code or propose a code for your language.
  4. Fill in all fields in the template.
  5. If many potential contributors to your language's wiki are likely to speak a different language that already has a wiki, try and drum up support at a community discussion area on that wiki. Encourage anyone who wants to contribute to your proposed language to come to this page and add their support for your proposal.
  6. If there is a consensus to create a wiki in your proposed language, send a message to the appropriate mailing list asking a developer to set up the wiki.
  7. Be patient, as our developers are very busy volunteers. You may work on articles, interface files and help or instruction pages using an offline word processor so that you can quickly get your new wiki going. You may want to look at the List of articles all languages should have.

Discussion on procedures

  • Is a meta-account really necessary?
    • Some people who request a wikipedia don't have a meta-account or don't have an account at all.
  • Should these be denied on base of meta-accounts or not?
    • At the moment they are not rejected.
  • When should the creation of wikis be approved or denied?
    • For example Bavarian has 30 support and 11 against a.t.m. how will this be solved?
  • Should anonymous users be allowed to vote?
    • The current situation is that anonymous users are allowed to vote, the user cannot be contacted to explain the viewpoints, and people with dynamic IP-addresses can vote multiple times.
  • Are users allowed to vote once the request is approved? (support or against)
    • There is no policy about this at the moment, but a logical answer would be no, once a request is approved it shouldn't be able to be deproved, voters have had their chance on "requests for new languages".
  • How long should the application "stand in queue" before having a final answer?
    • At the moment there is no specified time before a request is approved or denied it can take even up to a half a year or longer.
  • Is it necessary for approved wikis, without official ISO codes, to stand in queue for long periods?
    • At the moment they are not created because they don't have official code, they should be created on base of gms-, bat-, smg- or whatever codes which are also official ISO codes.
  • Are the current procedures stated above up to date?
    • The above procedures are not completely up to date, recent procedures have not been stated on the page.

Further discussion can be done on the talk page

FAQ

What do I do if there is no ISO code for my language?

If there is no standard code (no ISO code for your language, you will need to propose a code that is more than three letters long. The most standard way to create a code is to use a generic code for a language family (such as gem for Germanic languages) and a three letter code for the proposed language, resulting in codes like fiu-vro (from the code for other Finno-Ugric languages and the Voro language) and roa-rup (from the code for other Romance languages and the Aromanian language). If your language has an SIL code or IANA code, you may use this code for the second part. This procedure may not be ideal for all circumstances, but should be followed if reasonable.

How do I know if my language is sufficiently different from a language that already has a wiki?

This is an issue that is decided by consensus.

Can there be wikis in ancient languages?

Yes. There are already wikis available in Latin, Old English, Gothic and Pali.
Please add new requests for wikis in ancient languages to Requests for new languages/Ancient.

Can there be wikis in artificial languages?

Yes. There are already wikis available in Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, Lojban There used to be a Toki Pona wiki, but it was decided that the Toki Pona language was not used widely enough to support a wiki.

However, it is quite possible that a fictional language will get little favor. Many consider the existence of the Klingon Wikipedia to be unacceptable. There is currently a proposal to shut it down (See also Talk page).

Please place all new requests for Wikipedias in artificial languages at Requests for new languages/Non-natural.

How many speakers are necessary?

No language has ever been refused solely because of an insufficient number of speakers. For natural languages, this will probably never be an issue; for artificial languages, however, a low number of speakers may be taken as evidence that the language is not widely spoken enough to deserve a wiki.
The actual number of users who know the language and work on the wiki is an important issue, but it is not known how many are necessary for a wiki to gain momentum and solid growth. The dedication of the users may be more important than the number, since a few devoted users may write more, and higher quality, articles than a larger number of casual users.

Template

Note: All proposals for new languages should be made using this template!

Just copy & paste: 

{{New-language-template|
 Wiki accounts of the proposer=
|User accounts of others=
|Language code=
|Proposed domain=
|Wikipedia article=
|Number of speakers=
|Locations spoken=
|Related languages=
|Promoting organizations=
|Request on mailing list=
}}
;Comments

Approved

  • Nedersaksich
  • Vlax Romany
  • Banyumasan
  • Samogitian
  • Ripuarian

(see Approved requests for new languages)

In need of native contributors

  • Ainu
  • Franco-Provençal (Arpitan)
  • Gayo
  • Kinaray-a
  • Ligurian
  • Manchu
  • North Frisian
  • Papiamento
  • Saterlandic
  • Sorbian
  • Sranang Tongo

These languages have consensus for creation but are in need of additional support from native speakers. If you are a native speaker willing to work in one of these languages, please indicate thusly at Requests for new languages/Native speaker support.

Moved requests

Discussion ongoing

Please don't forget to log in (especially if you want to vote on a request). Thank you!

Template:Requests for new languages/mae

Slovio

please see: Requests for new languages/Non-natural

Bavarian Wikipdia

submitted verification final decision
This proposal has been approved.
The Board of Trustees and language committee have deemed that there is sufficient grounds and community to create the new language project.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

The requested project was created at bar: at an indeterminate date. Note that this request was approved before the implementation of the standardised Language proposal policy, and should not be used as a model for future requests. Shanel 05:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Number of speakers: no less than 17 million
  • Locations spoken: one third of Bavaria, Most of Austria, South Tirol
  • Related languages: High Franconian (including Standard German), Alemannic
Comments
  • Bavarian is closer to standard German than Alemannic is; yet many consider it either a separate language or a coherent cluster of quite independent German dialects. It is never called "Bayrisch" in Austria and South Tirol, where it is referred to as Österreichisch and Südtirolerisch, respectively. In Bavaria and Austria, Bavarian is almost everyone's native language; even in cities and towns it is used very widely.
    • Hi Caesarion! Oiso, i woas ned... Bavaria being my adopted country I'm feeling flattered ;-) However, I'm afraid a Wikipedia covering all Bavarian dialects is not feasible. They are just to different to fit within one single encyclopedia. Moreover, they are all part of the German language and only very rarely used in non-fictional writing. Do we really need this one? Arbeo 09:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is definitely not true. Bavarian is 'native language' only in three of the seven administrative districts ('Regierungsbezirke') of Bavaria . North Bavaria speaks a Franconian and the south-west a Swabian dialect. -- 172.179.95.20 15:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This little confusion has its origin in the fact that the English term "Bavarian" unlike the German language makes no difference between "bayrisch" in the sense of the state of Bavaria (which also includes Franconian- and Alemannic-speaking districts) and "bairisch" as the linguistic term for the dialects spoken in Upper Bavaria, Lower Bavaria, the Upper Palatinate, most of Austria (except Vorarlberg) and South Tyrol. We are talking here about the second meaning, cf.en:Austro-Bavarian. --84.113.230.60 19:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Arbeo, we need it as much or little as we need the Alemannic, Limburgic and Plattdütsch Wikipedias. Any speaker can judge whether he thinks a Bavarian Wikipedia is feasible. The borders between dialect and separate language are very vague indeed and have become even more so over the past years. While Bavaria is clearly not a separate country, you can't say the same about Bavarian so easily. And while there are indeed many Bavarian dialects this should not be an unsurmountable obstacle for creating a Wikipedia, if there are only a few devoted users willing to coordinate the whole project. And finally, the fact that it is rarely used for non-fictional writing goes for many other languages; just remember for how many of them Wikipedia is the first encyclopaedia that was ever created in that language. Caesarion 12:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to create a bavarian wikipedia, go ahead. But don't tag it as "Austro-Bavarian and Südtirolerisch". There are many different dialects within Austria, with big differences between, for example, Tyrol, Carinthia, Styria and Vienna. --Tsui 17:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:Tsui)[reply]
    • Support. Being an Upper Austrian dialect speaker, I do not view the differences between the bavarian dialects of Austria as a huge obstacle for this project. Actually I think the differences are less to be found in written than in spoken dialect. It is the melody which makes each of them distinctive. But if you compare dialect texts from all the bavarian dialect regions of Austria, they are pretty similar, apart from a few local distinctive features which can be understood easily in general, at least from the context. Same applies to the differences between the Austrian and German Bavarian language. It is no problem for people between Weiden in the Upper Palatinate in Northern Bavaria and the Austro-Hungarian border to understand each other, both in written and spoken dialect. Again, if you compare for instance dialect songs from Bavarian and Austrian song writers like Konstantin Wecker and Wolfgang Ambros, the differences in lyrics are marginal. I assume that in contrast the differences between the Alemannic dialects in Switzerland, Vorarlberg, Liechtenstein, Alsace and Southwestern Germany are much bigger what did not deter them from building a sucessful shared Wikipedia. Of course one could also argue that each federal state of Austria deserves its own wikipedia, but I doubt this is realisable in practice. Creating one local Wikipedia for all Bavarian speakers in Bavaria and Austria (which amount to at least 12 million people) would allow for a vital local wikipedia. Given the fact that about one half of the Bavarian speakers live in Austria, I would propose to label this joint Wikipedia 'Bairisch-Österreichisch' (Bavarian-Austrian), if our Bavarian friends do not have too much troubles with this. I am well aware this is not the correct linguistic term. However, I doubt that the majority of Austrians know what the generic term for their spoken dialect in linguistics is. They usually refer to it with the name of their federal state or just Austrian. I would like to discuss this. --84.113.230.60 00:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two problems: First is, there is no common, standardised, way to write in any of the bavarian dialects. Second: there are big differences between the dialects. Some examples: here is the, quite famous, poem "med ana schwoazzn dintn" by w:H. C. Artmann in viennese dialect and, for comparison, the lyrics of a song by tyrolean singer Zabine, "kapfinger".
        The simple sentence "Ich heiße...", is "I haas" in Vienna, but "I hoas" in Innsbruck. "Kommst du" is "kummst" in Vienna, but "kimst" in Tyrol. And I'm not even talking about Carinthia, Styria, Burgenland etc. or Bavaria, which has its own separate regions and dialects. Arbeo above writes "i woas net" (en: "I don't know"), which seems to be bavarian; in Vienna it would be "i waas net". Where Konstantin Wecker sings "oana" (en: "one"), Wolfgang Ambros sings "ana". --Tsui 04:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I concede these arguments are well-founded. On the other hand: I have no difficulties in reading all four of these texts (funny enough, the only demanding text for me is the Artmann poem although I have lived in Vienna for six years) and I find the variety interesting and would like to learn about it. Is it really necessary to have a uniform, standardised transcription? In my opinion, a dialect wikipedia should rather promote the variety of local dialects which belong to the same group (and can still be read as it seems to be the case to a large degree here, at least according to me) than having strict rules. It would be interesting to learn how the Alemannic Wikipedia deals with these questions. --84.113.230.60 10:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it does not make sense to create a new Wikipedia for every dialect. You have to write everything again, and the only difference is the spelling of the words. But what is the use of it? People who speak bavarian or related dialects can also read texts written in standardized german. They do every day, when they read their newspaper or a cooking book. In my opinion a wikipedia in "allemannian dialect" (or how it is called correctly) is also waste of time, energy etc... because they people probably prefer reading the german (de)-wikipedia, because there the information is more professional and much more articels can be found there. Would you create an own wikipedia for "users from texas" too, just because they (probably?) talk in a special kind of dialect? Of course no. In my opinion this "wikipedia for every dialect" is only a special form of patriotism. I speak bavarian dialect too (I'm from austria), and I like the dialect, but I don't write in dialect, because there is no standard so that everyone who speaks that dialect can read it well, and in fact it is really easier to read and write in standard german, when you want to reach other people. -->With dialect-wikipedia you reach a more or less big part of the population using this dialect, but with a wikipedia in standard germand, you reach everyone who speaks german, and by the way, the de-wikip. gets better much faster when everyone concentrates his forces into this single one german language wiki, instead of divorcing the "writing-forces" into different area-dialects. If it all would run like this, we now had about 4 or 5 wikipedias for the biggest dialect groups, and everyone of it would have it's good and it's bad researched parts, so that no one of them in fact would be as complete, as it now is (it is not complete, it probably will never be, but you know what I mean - we have much more us with one big germand wikip. because everyone - doesn't matter which dialect - can read it and work on it! Sorry for my probably not very well english! -- de:Otto Normalverbraucher 11:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The comparison to dialects of Texas is patently absurd. Texan dialects are barely different at all from other North American dialects of English, seeing as it's been separated from any other dialect by less than 400 years, less than 300 years for the majority of them, and less than 200 years for most dialects west of the Mississipi River. --Node ue 04:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not that the Bavarians, Austrians and South Tyroleans be unable to edit and understand the German Wikipedia, I just think the present dialects are separate enough to be considered a language and to be granted an encyclopaedia - just that it would be something new to create a Bavarian Wikipedia seems enough reason to some to reject it. Wikipedias in regional languages have proven workable in the past, even wehen everyone writes in his own dialect. Alemannic, Limburgic and Platt preceded this request and are solid, good (if not yet full-grown) Wikipedias. Caesarion 19:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is another language with millions of speakers which should have its own wikipedia. As with other regional languages in Europe, I think an Austro-Bavarian wikipedia would be likely to succeed. But there is extensive dialectal variation, and I think some "dialects" are perhaps distinct enough that they should have separate wikipedias. --Chamdarae 02:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I grew up in Rodach until 12 and then in Regensburg until I went to Italy, part of my family is in Regensburg, Munich and part in Niederösterreich so one thing should be clear: I very much appreciate this project. I took a bit of time because I was not sure if to actively participate or just support the project - at this moment there are too many things going and so I am so sorry that I am not able to do much - of course: if you need help with single things, let me know. --Sabine 14:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better, to build in the especially terms of bavarian or austrian language in the standard german wikipedia. At first there are not so many forces to fill up an austro-bavarian wiki, following the most reader search in the standard german and so the complete project will die automatically again. The existing project must have so much of place (bytes and tolerance) that both variations can leave together. K@rl 198.40.90.11 05:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Really this is a general consideration: all these small wikipedias for minor languages or languages that have many varieties are to be seen as a very effective way to preserve that language and culture. It does not make too much difference if someone writes "I woas" or "I waas" because it is just transmitting the sound into written language. A Bavarian speaking person will know both of them. They will know where the writer comes from. So any wikipedia, no matter if Bavarian, Platt, Sicilian (who btw. do a really good job), Neapolitan etc. is mainly there to preserve a language and culture. If a language dies the culture dies with it. As for these languages it is not so important to have all articles, but have as much use of the language as possible. And having to write about scietific things, history etc. in that languages is very important since most of all you only find poems, songs etc. and over time these minor languages become more and more adapted to the stanardised language (for Bavarian this is German) unless that minor language becomes an indefinible something with a common writing, but different pronunciation according to the region where people pronounce that words ... well this means that the language is dieing and with it its unique culture. Now I already know the answers that are going to come: well, I am for preserving languages like Bavarian, Saxon, Low Saxon, Neapolitan, Venetian, Sicilian etc. --Sabine 20:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
as a bavarian and admin at german Wikipedia I strongly oppose this dialect wikipedia. the bavarian dialects are too different both written and spoken, the difference to the austrian dialects is even greater, especially in matters of vocabulary. I live near the border to Salzburg and can tell you that you will hear the difference a single meter behind the border. Also, you can't write 17 million speakers there, most of Munich doesn't count. -- TomK32 WR Internet 07:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to TomK32: most of Vienna doesn't count too ;). IMHO, This may be a nice project, but I'm not sure, if it's the right time for this to start now. -- Fleasoft 09:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense Bavarians are going nuts. You people speak German, not Bavarian. Bavarian is a

dialect/accent of High German. Low German is a somewhat seperate language, while Bavarian is simply a dialect. Stop being cranky and start writing more in the GERMAN WIKIPEDIA. 141.53.194.251 12:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • You talk nonsense. If you really don't know the difference between accent and dialect, you're just absolutely ignorant when it comes to linguistics. And again: the main reason to call Bavarian a dialect is just a political/sociological one: the presence of a superstrate Standard Language. Start doing linguistics, then you'll notice that elsewhere in the world variants with much smaller mutual differences are considered separate languages. In the meantime: keep your shut about things you know nothing about. Caesarion Velim, non opto 17:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who decides where to draw the line between dialect and language? Why is Luxembourgian a language and Bavarian a dialect? Linguistics teaches us there is a lot of politics involved in this. There is a famous quote by Noam Chomsky: "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy." Why should then the politicians tell us which languages are worth preserving and which not? --84.113.230.60 19:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • support I would support the idea of creating a bavarian wikipedia (including the bavarian dialect of Austria and South-Tyrol). But a big question is how we are going to write a word in Bavarian. There doesn't exit any rules and the pronounciation varies even within bavaria from region to region. E.g to come would be pronounced kim in Niedernbayern but kum in the Oberpfalz. Therefore we shouldn't try to imitate the pronounciation for an entry for a bavarian word as it is done (unfortunately) on the menus in some bavarian restaurants. E.g. the entry for a widely-used greeting in Bavaria should be Grüß Gott but not Griaß God or something like this. Additionally it is possible to add the regional used pronounciation in brackets using the official phonetical alphabet. To start with we should focus on articles about bavarian or austrian-concerned themes like bavarian songwriters, bavarian culture etc.We shouldn't start with an article about relativity theority in bavarian. Another important area are entries about special bavarian words like Semmel, Kren, Godl or Stenz etc.

But perhaps we need for this a bavarian wiktionary. 213.6.235.33 21:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)(de:user:tk)[reply]

  • as a bavarian, I strongly oppose a bavarian wikipedia. dialect, not language. --Elian 02:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elian, how many times must we say it? Bavarian is a dialect without an army and a navy and Standard German is one with. Just come up with one strong linguistical argument why Bavarian is a dialect and Slovak, Tuvaluan, Indonesian, Dutch, Norwegian and Karelian are not dialects of Czech, Tahitian, Malay, German, Swedish and Finnish, respectively. Just one strong argument. Then you can join this discussion. Caesarion Velim, non opto 14:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wos buidst du daheaglafner Lakl dia agendlich oo, mia z'sagn woin wan I mitmochn deaf in dea deppatan Diskussion hia? Mia hom a deitsche Wikipedia, dö kon a jeda depp lesn aa wen a sunst nix ko. mea brachats hoit schlichtweng ned. Hoost mi??? --Elian 08:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC) (if someone can fix my spelling? I am not so sure in bavarian orthography if there is one at all)[reply]
        • Elian, there are two things you must separate. You may know how to speak Bavarian, but do you know about its linguistic ins and outs? Unless if I'm very wrong, you have not stated one linguistic argument in the above, once again so! And of course, whether the Bavarian Wikipedia will be created bepends on whether there are enough willing contributors. No-one will stop you and other Bavarians to continue working on de:, neither will we force you to start contributing to gem-bai:. So what's the matter with all this? Will having a Bavarian Wikipedia hurt you? No. It won't even hurt de:, since there continues to be a strong iflux of new contributors, and the German population is still big enough to recruit loads of new Wikipedians, both for the Standard German Wikipedia and for the regional ones existing and to-be-created. Caesarion Velim, non opto 10:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Btw I could hardly read your Bavarian though my passive comprehension of German is good - a strong argument for calling Bavarian a separate language, I daresay ;-). Caesarion Velim, non opto 10:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am a new user and I would like to contribute to both versions. Elian, in my opinion the aim is not to replace the German Wikipedia but to create a platform for certain articles in Bavarian in order to show that our dialects (or better regional languages) are qualified for a "modern" medium and not something old-fashioned. You could compare it with the successful Asterix-versions in regional languages which do also likely promote their use. See also my comment below. Pfiat di! --84.113.230.60 11:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contra I am Bavarian, I hate having to read somthing which is normal my language in some strange spelling. Use normal spelling, it is only a choice of some word left. So it is the same and They should write in the German Wikipedia.
  • oppose I am Bavarian. In contrast to Standard German, there is no standardized variant of Bavarian. All speakers of Bavarian are bilingual and have access to German language encyclopedias. Adding Bavarian content to any Wiktionary would be interesting though, but it is already possible. I also hate the idea of abandoning southern words like "Jänner" in de.wikipedia, as that is a perfectly High German word (although it is an Austrian regionalism). Of course, if there are enough people who really want to work on a Bavarian Wikipedia, go ahead ... --zeno 23:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a misunderstanding of many opponents here is they believe this new Wikipedia would somehow replace the German Wikipedia (for much of Bavaria and Austria) and all articles from the German Wikipedia would have to be translated into the new Wikipedia, with all creative forces directed toward the new Wikipedia exclusively. This would certainly be a misconception. In my opinion the Bavarian Wikipedia should not strive for building a complete new Wikipedia with the same number of articles and an overall spectrum like the German Wikipedia. It should rather focus on certain interesting articles which could be longer and might be centered around local topics concerning Bavaria, Austria and Südtirol, like regional culture, artists, songwriters, popular personalities, but also science and history. As Sabine has put it: "Having to write about scientific things, history etc. in that languages is very important since most of all you only find poems, songs etc." According to me, the main intention should be to show that our daily language is a vital language which is also convenient for an encyclopedia. By using it in this "modern" medium it could be shown that our regional languages are everything but outfashioned; that they are valuable and preservable parts of our culture and a heritage which is worth to be preserved. At least this is my opinion... Concerning regional vocabulary, which is only used in parts of the Bavarian language area, I think everybody should use it as he uses it in everyday language. We could just add links to the Wiktionary explaining it - I think this is almost an advantage because it allows mutual learning of sometimes "endangered" words and promotes their daily use and preservation. --84.113.230.60 23:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does not Standard, or TV German, relate to the other German Platts and Allemmanic langs (from Italy over Poland, Romania, Ceckoslovakia and Nederland/Begium/Luxemburg to entire Scandinavia) the same way as worldwide use of englisch relates to all languages on earth?--84.60.215.33 10:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • support: I like the idea, although I don't know whether I would take part. One thing isn't said yet: The Bavarian wikipedia will not be built for being read in first place; there is no Bavarian that can't read the German one. The Bavarian wikipedia will be built for writing in Bavarian, such as the Low German or the Alemannic, I don't think they are built to give their readers an alternative to the German one. Elian, you are right when you say we don't need it. But do we need everything in the wikipedia? Do we need the Alemannic or Platt one?Why should they have what we, Freistaat (I know this only means republic), don't have? But please, use an honest spelling, such as in de:Bairische Umschrift. It's not "Kinda" but "Kinder"! It's not "heanoch" but "hern°ach" (where's that letter?)! And I don't think there would be a big problem with the different Bavarians. Once we have an honest spelling, a big part of the problems are away (but the text is still Bavarian, it's not a choice of some word left, dear who-said-that.) For the rest, we simply tolerate the different Bavarians. --84.154.111.68 09:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not entire sure if Kinder is to be preferred over Kinda. As a matter of facts, there are more ways of spelling Bavarian, and the -er ending is actually pronounced "-a". But we should deal with that later, I think. Most important of all is that the supporters of a Bavarian Wikipedia unite and start creating something worth reading. Caesarion Velim, non opto 13:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wrote that because someone above me was worried about "having to read somthing which is normal my language in some strange spelling." And the -er ending is pronounced "-a", but so is it if a Bavarian reads a High German text. --84.154.100.86 12:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NONSENSE I oppose this motion to create an Austro-Bavarian Wikipedia. There is not one Austro-Bavarian dialect there is a number of different dialects. --EricPoehlsen 13:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As a native speaker of Lower Bavarian, I don't even see the possibility to create a Wikipedia with the dialect of my home district, as there are so many differences. It's even more impossible when you think of all the Bavarian dialects. There is no such thing as "High Bavarian", you can't really make up one dialect for Upper Palatinate, Munich and South Tyrol. -- 84.146.131.236 16:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • First read all of what is said above. We don't want to write in one unified dialect on that Wikipedia. Your dialect is excluded since it does not belong to the Bavarian language but to High Franconian, i.e. German in the narrowest sense. Of all of the dialects that remain, any speaker may write in their own variety: someone from München writes Münchnerdeutsch, someone from Vienna Viennese, someone from Bolzano South Tyrolean. We are confident that this will work, just because it works on nds:, als: and li:! And finally: Wikipedias are not prevented from being created when most people oppose it on this page, though some of you seem to think that.
      • Caesarion, as a supporter I would like to ask you: please do not write in this aggressive tone. We should have a fair debate, in which everyone might express his opposition or support. If there are enough supporters and a test works, we'll see what will be possible. Btw, Lower Bavarian does belong to the Bavarian language, not to High Franconian. --80.121.28.56 (I am former user 84.113.230.60) 05:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well. 84.133, sorry about that, but the matter is that we are debating the question and then opposers come in with comments that betray them not to have read most of the discussion. Besides, I am under the impression that someone at de: or possibly on a forum or irl is convoking as many people as possible to oppose this project, thinking that stating an objection here is a vote against (quod non, Wikipedias are not voted for to be created, they are created when there is just enough support for them, when there are no linguistic objections and most of all when there are innuf contibutors). By the way, I am not sure what is meant with Lower Bavarian: if this constitutes all of the dialects of North Bavaria it is not Bavarian. Caesarion Velim, non opto 08:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lower Bavaria is deeply Bavarian ;-) Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Bavaria --80.123.13.208 10:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caesarion, the fact that you think Lower Bavarian is some sort of High Franconian makes me doubt that you know what you're talking about. And I'm sure it won't work that everybody writes how he wants or thinks in one Wikipedia. -- Yesterday's 84 ip, 84.146.133.235 12:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, in fact I did not know what Lower Bavarian constituted, but once they disambiguated its meaning I am convinced. Of course I withdraw the above statement on Lower Bavarian. And indeed, I am not really an expert about Bavarian, but what little I know about it firmly constitutes my opinion that it is a separate language. I would, under this conditions, never have opened this entry if not someone else proposed a Wikipedia in South Tyrolian. I opposed that idea but thought a Bavarian Wikipedia was feasible, and quite the only way yet to give South Tyrolean a chance. I could not possibly have known that I would be dragged in such a discussion. Yet, as I opened this entry I feel bound to continue contributing to the discussion as well as I can. And since I feel bound to correct someone else's views, you may feel free to correct mine. Caesarion Velim, non opto 22:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just added the ISO-Code for Bavarian - it exists. It is also in the Unesco red book of endangered languages (for now it is categorised as "not endangered" it is grouped as well with Austrian there). Just for info - so it is already considered a language and not a dialect like many suppose. --Sabine 16:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sabine, you are mistaken when writing; considered a language and not a dialect - a dialect is a variant or a variety of a language. Since a variety of something is also a something, so is each and every dialect a language. The entire discussion when it comes to dialect is not 'language or dialect' but of deviation and need:
          1. Does proposed new language deviate enough from already existing language when written?
          2. Is there a need among potential readers to find proposed new language? E.g. because they preceive already existing language hard/impossible to read, or they hate reading it, or maybe just for fun and/or minority pride.
          3. Is there a sufficient base of writers and supporters who feel the urge to express encyclopedic knowledge in proposed new language rather than already existing language? Will it enrich the world? Will there be contributions that warrant translation? ... that probably were not made in another language?--84.60.195.122 01:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I second what most of the other supporters already stated: On the one hand, there's no great sense in pointing out the diversity of the language, as Allemanic is just diversified as Bavarian. On the other hand, such Wikipedias serve the interest of propagating a language as cultural assets, rather then being merely an encyclopedia anymore. No one has to read it, if they just want to look up a certain piece of information, but you can look at it in order to perceive the feeling of the language - I really did enjoy looking over Allemanic and Letzeburgish Wikipedias just for interest (trying to understand as much as possible). I further agree that it might serve the purpose of keeping the High German Wikipedia free from dialectal influence, as people become more and more aware of the differences between their spoken dialect and the standardized language. --Monad 21:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have corrected Locations spoken: from most of Bavaria to one third of Bavaria. South Western Bavaria (roughly cut Region "Schwaben" inside Bavaria) speaks an Allemannic variety; Northern half speaks several Frankonian varieties belonging to the Middle German language group whilst Bavarian, Austrian, etc. belong to the Upper German language group; the utmost North-West has a Palatinian Rhine-Franconian language. So only less than 1/4 of the area of federal state Bavaria is populated by Bavarian speaking inhabitants, who probably contribute 1/3 or so to overall non-immigrant population. -- 84.60.195.122 01:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just found out that there is also an iso 639-2 code for Bavarian and that it is present also in Hungary and the Czech Republic. Knowing that usually iso 639-2 codes are used, therefore I changed it. Furthermore I added the link to Ethnologue where a detailed description of where it is spoken can be found. 84.60.195.122 could you please tell us who you are? Thank you! --Sabine 09:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Language code gem is inappropriate. It denotes a language group (bad but tolerable) yet it's an 'other' group (intolerable) and in fact includes such diverse languages as Achterhoeks (Nederland), Afrikaans, Swiss-Allemannian, Amerdish (USA), English Romani (United Kingsdom, Ireland), Bayerisch/Ost-Oberdeutsch (Group code: gem-bar), Cimbrian (Cayman Islands), Dalska/Dalmaan (Sweden), Franconian Noort Drents and Zuid Drents (Nederland), Fränkish (Germany), Old Frankish (Germany), Eastern Frisian (incl. dialects: Eastfresean, Saterlandic, ...), North Frisian Languages (Group Code gem-frs-*) (with Dialects: Sölreng, Helgolands, Ferring, Mooring, ...), Alemán Coloneiro (Venzuela, Colonia Tovar), German Hutterite (Canada), Pennsylvania-German (USA), Gronings (Nederland), Jamska (Sweden), Jysk/Western Danish (Danmark), Kölsch (Germany), Mainfrankish language Group (Germany), M´cheno (Italy), Norn (United Kingdom), Pfälzisch (Germany), Plautdietsch (Canada, et al.), Sallands (Netherlands), Upper Saxon (Germany), Lower Silesian (Poland, [Germany]), Skånsk language group (Sweden, Bornholm, ...) (with several dialects), Stellingwerfs (Nederland), Swabian (Germany), Tavringer Romani (Sweden), Traveller Danish (aka Rodi, Rotwelsch) (Denmark), Traveller Norwegian (aka Rodi) (Norway), Twents (Netherland), Veenkolonials (Netherland), East Veluws (Netherland), North Veluws (Netherland), Vlaams Group of Languages (Belgium), Walser Swiss, Westerwolds Low Saxon (Netherland), Westphalien (Germany), Western Yiddish (Germany), Yinglish (USA), plus few more less known plus expected future additions. -- Purodha Blissenbach 11:53, 2005 September 11 (UTC)
  • I am a native Bavarian speaker and opposite to a bavarian wikipedia. The written language in Bavaria is high German. There is no stardardized way to write Bavarian, and its dialects differ a lot. I do not believe that there is a person in Bavarian who would prefer reading a text in non-standardized Bavarian over reading it in High German.--84.146.162.44 13:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • support I would support the idea of creating a bavarian wikipedia (including the bavarian dialect of Austria and South-Tyrol). But a big question is how we are going to write a word in Bavarian. There doesn't exit any rules and the pronounciation varies even within bavaria from region to region. E.g to come would be pronounced kim in Niedernbayern but kum in the Oberpfalz. Therefore we shouldn't try to imitate the pronounciation for an entry for a bavarian word as it is done (unfortunately) on the menus in some bavarian restaurants. E.g. the entry for a widely-used greeting in Bavaria should be Grüß Gott but not Griaß God or something like this. Additionally it is possible to add the regional used pronounciation in brackets using the official phonetical alphabet. To start with we should focus on articles about bavarian or austrian-concerned themes like bavarian songwriters, bavarian culture etc.We shouldn't start with an article about relativity theority in bavarian. Another important area are entries about special bavarian words like Semmel, Kren, Godl or Stenz etc.

But perhaps we need for this a bavarian wiktionary. 213.6.235.33 21:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)(de:user:tk)

  • Support: Bavarian is seen as a language by SIL International (ethnologue.com) and UNESCO for example! Furthermore there are many poems, essays, etc. and thus some writing rules (that maybe have to be improved; but I do not think so, see www.bayerische-sprache.de)! Another reason for supporting a gem-bar.wikipedia is, that the other "dialect Wikipedias" are active ones and in top 100 of all 200 Wikipedias (when comparing the article number); near the Hindi Wikipedia! @Anonymous users: Your oppositions only conditionally can be counted when you are anonymous (some IP numbers do change every day)! Furthermore (see point seven; at the top) we just want to know, if there are people interested in starting this Wikipedia. And because there are some users (and the other dialect group Wikipedias "do their job" pretty well), I would say there is nothing that would speak against the creation. @Caesarion: Unfortunately I was this unwise person who has told some users with a "I speak Bavarian" babel on their user pages, that there is a discussion about a Bavarian Wikipedia. But I didn't think that so much of them would strrongly oppose (due to personal reasons, I think). But nevertheless this is better than the case in which nobody would know about this proposal. So we have pretty much supporters, too. --- Conclusion: just create it, wait, and see (and be astonished ;-); see my user page for more comments on this, Melancholie 03:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just one announcement, useful for non-fluent speakers who want to offer their help: besides the links given above, there is a site especially created for those who want to learn it: Bayrisch-lernen.de (I regret the y-spelling in its title, of course :)). Also quite useful if you speak it fluently but can't write it. They cocnentrate on the Munich dialect, which is an advantage for external learners since otherwise your Bavarian would be likely to become a Mischmasch. Caesarion Velim, non opto 07:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As a native speaker of "Upper Bavaria" I love all bavarian dialects (doesn't matter from Lower Bavaria, Austria ... South Tyrol) and its beautiful sound. Of course there are differences but I think that make it even more interesting. I think the small differences like "Sunntag" (Lower and Upper Barvaria) or "Sunntig" (South Tyrol) or "Muich" and "Milli" ... should not be a problem for the reader. For special words there should/could be a link to Wiktionary. I'm not used in writing to Wikipedia but mabe it would be nice if each continous text or at least sentence is written by one writer to prevent too much "Mischmasch". Everybody should write his sentences the way he would speak it. I think e.g. "Kinda", "Griaß Enk God", "schiach" are quite ok but perhabs special letters can sometimes help to show the pronunciation. It's really easy to write a sentence like "Bei so an schena Dog wui ma nix doa" but at least "Dog" maybe difficult to read. I'm sure there's a solution to handle such small problems and I think the "Bairische" or austrian-bavarian Wikipedia is really an interesting project that should be supported. Maybe it can be even useful to share local words or words that are going to be unknown. --84.150.88.202 22:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Roland[reply]

  • Support: Unless Bairisch is more ore less a spoken language, i will support this Wikipedia. It will be interesting to find together to an austrian-bavarian Wikipedia with some "Neue Rechtschreibregeln". To my opinion it has to do with self-confidence also to use the "dialect" as a written language. Many people associate "dialect" with primitivity and dullness, but you can see it also as an additional linguistic register. Regards de:Benutzer:Lou.gruber

Support: I'm a native speaker an support starting an bavarian wiki (austria included). For the matter of spelling I recommend using the books "bairisches deutsch" (www.bayerische-sprache.de/Index/Biacher.htm amazon.de) or "bayerisches Wörterbuch" [3] from Prof. Anthony Rowley as guideline --de:Benutzer:Erd

Support: I'm also a native speaker an alredy aktiv @ de.wikipedia.org --84.146.213.245 07:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are quite a range of views here! Can we get some kind of consensus? Does it meet the conditions for starting a new wikipedia listed here? I notice that there are many native speakers, both for and against, but it's not clear how many are willing to work on any new wikipedia. It looks like it might be enough though. --Chamdarae 18:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support:I'm a native speaker and willing to contribute as well.--DusvanGud 12:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • with no vote - because it should be an interesting experiment, but I hope it will not lead to discussions in the german wikipedia about the 'Jänner'- and other terms. I wish you good luck if you start it -- Necrophorus 15:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC) (as a westphalian living in Berlin)[reply]

Support: I think, that a bavarian Wikipedia will be a good experiment and why shouldn't have the bavarian people have there own wikipedia? We have a wikipedia in Low-German and in Allemannic. I think also, that this wikipedia schould named "Bairisch-Österreichisch" or in Bavarian "Boarisch-Österreichisch", becaus also austrian people schould know, that bavarian is also thair dialect. --193.170.42.1 13:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support for more different Wikipedias: I support a (South) Tyrolean Wikipedia Skafa 7 October
  • Support No argument against a bavarian wikipedia really convinced me, so: Let's give it a try. (Pack' ma's) Benson.by 16.oct.05
  • Support - being not very optmistic, i think we should give it a try. looking forward to all the spelling diskussions between viennese and bavarian native speakers ;o) flame99 14:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Gugganij 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Belgian man 15:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Spoken by eight million people in five countries!!![reply]
  • Oppose Dialect. Raetius 01:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Raetius, you're stating this everywhere on this page. But clearly you haven't read a single word of the discussion. Who is telling us which variety is a langauge and which is a dialect? Do you oppose separate Swedish, Danish, Dano-Norvegian, and Neo-Norvegian Wikipedias as well? Come on now, those are much, much closer to each other than Bavarian to German. Caesarion Velim, non opto 11:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not needed. Every German can read it, everone frm Bavarya/Austria/STyrol reads German. -- 84.60.193.173 02:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no point in opposing, admitting Wikipedias like these is simply the policy. There are Limburgic, Luxemburgic and Alemannic Wikipedias, even though all of the speakers can read Dutch, German, and French. And if we don't need a Bavarian Wikipedia you could as well say we don't need a Dutch Wikipedia: I can read all of en: and most articles are much longer and much better. Caesarion Velim, non opto 11:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The most frequent opposition seems to be "it's a dialect, not a language", but this distinction is irrelevant in linguistics. An alemanic wikipedia already exists... why not a bavarian one? I don't think this is a danger for the german wikipedia because most of the contributors will still participate in the german wikipedia and the translations between this two languages are easy. I don't speak german very well but a little and I like sometimes to try reading the alemanic wikipedia, although i don't speak it. imho it would be a good idea to make more wikipedia in "dialects" because they are part of the linguistic diversity. Polletfa 23:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see any good argument, why there should'nt be a Bavarian-Austrian Wikipedia, while having an alemannic and even a limburgian Wikipedia. The differences between alemannic dialects for example are much bigger than between the bavarian dialects. And asking people from northern Germany, if they think bavarian is a german dialect or an own language, most people may say it's a language because they don't understand it. By the way, the Bavarian Academy of Sciences is working on an official bavarian language dictionary, (see http://www.bwb.badw.de/). de:Benutzer:TillF 22:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support It will be an interesting experiment to come to an agreement on spelling rules for the highly differentiated phonetic system of vowels. However, if Alemannic speaking people manage to work on an own wikipedia, this certainly will be possible also for Bavarian. Differences within Bavarian are less strong compared to the differences within Alemannic. Probably the project soon will show, how big the differences to Standard German really are. I suppose that most of the users which voted against a Bavarian wikipedia are not fully aware of these difference. de:Benutzer:Franz Xaver 00:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I understand German, Luxemburgisch etc. quite well but I realy don't understand Bavarian, it's not that close to German or the spelling is just really distant...
  • Support I'm not a specialist, but as I can conclude from examples given in English article, there is quite a difference between Bavarian and standard German. If so, I see no reasons why Bavarian should not have own Wikipedia alongside with Low Saxon and Allemanic Kneiphof 21:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 04:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The aim of Wikipedia is that people can get every encyclopedic information in their language. But in fact, every speaker of Bavarian or Ripuarian or another German dialect can read and write Standard German. And there is not THE Bavarian languages but a big pool of dialects which belong to the Auatro-Bavarian group. So in fact, I would support new wikipedias in DIALECTS (not languages which are clearly different from the main language in that country like Lower and Upper Sorbian) if there is a regulated grammar and orhography or if there are speakers who cannot understand the Wikipedia in the Standard languages. --Steffen Löwe Gera 16:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I thank any speaker of one of the different "bairisch" dialects can understand articles written in an other variety. The similarities are much more important than the differences, which obviously exist. I think this project could be an interesting social experiment, focussed on regional - and obviously universal - knowledge. I am sure I could and would participate without lowering my work on the german version of wikipedia. The potential (number of users, writers, readers etc.) is enormous and a chance should be given to it. 88.0.69.154 15:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC) (registered as Pérvasion in german Wikipedia; from Südtirol)[reply]
  • Neutral While definetly not opposed to the creation, I would like to know more about the feasibility first. How is this proposed to be named: Austro-Bavarian? does not exist as a single entity in my opinion, because alone in Austria and Bavaria you have dozens of dialects (Fränkisch, Steierisch, Tirolerisch, Vorarlbergerisch, Wienerisch....etc.) even within Vienna you have different dialects, so I don't know... and someone from Vienna will not understand someone who is speaking in Vorarlbergerisch, I'm sure same goes for many tongues in Südtirol, as each valley has a different dialect, sometimes completely incoherrent from each other. theoretically then we need a Swizzerdütsch version as well. and what standard is supposed to be used, when there are so many different ones? Gryffindor 01:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs some explaination: As I understand the proposal, it aims to create a Wikipedia for Bavarian in linguistic terms and not in political terms. In German there is a distinction between "bayerisch" and "bairisch". "Bayerisch" ist connected to the political territory of en:Bavaria/de:Bayern, whereas "bairisch" means anything connected to the people that derived from the historical Germanic tribe of en:Bavarii/de:Bajuwaren. The latter term also includes most of Austrian dialects. As in Englisch both "bayerisch" and "bairisch" are translated as "bavarian", this is a permanent cause of misunderstandings.
    So this proposal would not include Swabian or Franconian dialects in Bavaria nor Vorarlbergisch in Austria. Vorarlbergisch is part of the Alemannic group of dialects which already have got their own Wikipedia - also including Schwyzerdütsch and Alsatian. Anyway, the differences between Vienna dialect and dialects from Südtirol/en:South Tyrol are less strong than between Swabian dialects from Stuttgart and dialects from Valais. --Franz Xaver 00:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - there are wikipedias of several German dialects, why not Bavarian? --Noriker 15:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the number of speakers indicated above ("no less than 17 million") is incorrect. To me, that looks more like the total number of inhabitants who live in areas where Bavarian/Austrian is spoken. I'd roughly estimate the number of people who actually know the language to be not much higher than 10 M. Arbeo 22:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - let's get this thing on going. --Michael 22:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose (N) why do this? just to "save the dialect" - you can't save a dialect or culture with a wikipedia... And by the way: Which dialect should be saved there? As we read already a few times, there are a lot of differences between a tirolean native speaker and an viennese native speaker for example. What we would have in the "bavarian wikipedia" would be chaos and trouble, when two people "fight" about a few words....this would be silly.... And if not to "save the dialect" (I read this a few times here), what for then? As I already wrote, we can contribute much more, when we write in the de-wikipedia. Why splitting forces? I think in the same way of the swiss (alemannian) wikipedia. The few people who write there, do this only for fun. And people who want reach information, don't go to a "dialect-wikipedia" - all the information comes together in de-wikipedia. Dialect-Wikipedias only split the writing forces. -- de:Otto Normalverbraucher 02:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There are people who want to have a bavarian Wikipedia and want to contribute to it (for fun, for saving the dialects or for what ever...)! So let them have their WP; where is the problem? The only point is: Will there be users contributing to that WP?! And the answer is -YES-. Furthermore it is not at all true, that nobody would read those articles, just ask on lb, als or nds what their feebacks are and you will see that you are wrong. --84.156.119.159 05:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am from Lower Bavaria and opposite to a Bavarian Wikipedia. There are just too many differences within the Bavarian dialects. There is no uniform Bavarian language, and also no standard for writing in Bavarian, which means that an article written in Bavarian is always a bit hard to read and always represents a small spot in Bavaria or Austria or South Tyrol where the author is from. This might be a desirable thing for certain monographs, but definitely not for a project like a Bavarian wikipedia with hundreds of writers. Furthermore, I do not believe that there are people who seriously prefer reading an encyclopedic text in non-standard Bavarian over one written in High German. In my opinion, the effort should better be spent on articles about Bavarian, but not in Bavarian. The profit for the Bavarian language would be much higher, because many more people would be able to read such articles and therefore to learn about Bavarian.--de:MKI 13:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support if alamannisch has a working Wiki, why can't bavarian have one? --Ecelan 14:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Why happens this discussion in English? Because we are not able any more to protect our cultural heritage, part of which is our language. Even if our Bavarian will disappear from the planet, it is worth to try to give it some more years to live. The Wikipedia is one of the arms we have. So, lets go ahead.
  • Oppose. I consider a Bairisch Wikipedia a major waste of time and manpower, seeing as all Bairisch speakers can just as well contribute to the German Wikipedia. After all, the idea of Wikipedia is to make knowledge accessible to everybody (in a language they command at a native speaker's level), it's not about cultivating every possible quasi-language on this planet. – Jondor 13:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT then why should we have a german Wiki at all? We all speak decent english, 99% of the tech info is in english in anyway, nobody needs another language for him/her to find a job... and we all can work on the english version. Let's forbid using german altoghether and solve the problem once and for all. We only have to call our euro "dollars" and the job will be finished :) Come on... bertodsera 20:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jondor: all Bairisch speakers can just as well contribute to the German Wikipedia - Probably every contributor to Catalan wikipedia could just as well contribute also to Spanish (Castellano) wikipedia. I also could have used wikipedias in Breton, Welsh and many more as an example. You would not consider all of these wikipedias as a waste of time? --Franz Xaver 15:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support If only to parallel the accomplishments of the folks working on the Plattduutsch and Allemannisch pages, would some generous native speakers PLEASE be just as kind and give of yourselves to those of us interested in dialects. No, it's not needed. None of these German dialect sites are really needed. But they are wonderful. And if you don't like the page, or don't want it, IGNORE IT, but don't vote it down for those of us who do want it. Wenn Ihr's nicht haben wollt, dann bitte, lasst uns, die es doch gern sehen moechten in Ruh'. Stop pissing on our parade, so to speak. If you consider a waste of manpower, go work on something else. -User:ByronDB

Let's Support it while there are still native speakers around. (N)--62.47.183.106 07:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support (N) --de:Marcadore 16:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Support Because there are always debates between Standard German and official austrian/bavarian standard terms and expressions, most of the official austrian/bavarian standard terms are just deleted although an austrian/bavarian author has written the article; that's profound impertinence! I'm sorry but there are a lot of dialects in the German language and if they aren't accepted why does this Wikipedia call itself a German Wikipedia, I had to read several other German dialect's terms or words too, and still every time I was able to understand them AUSTRO/BAVARIAN WIKIPEDIA !!!! --Häsk 14:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support against the discrimination of bavarian and austrian terms--de:Mihály 15:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Bavarian is such a lovely language and it definetly deserves its place here. However, I can't see the proposed "austrian-bavarian" thing working. The differences are too apparent. Therefore we need a "High Bavarian" orintated on the regional interpretation of the area's capital Munich. "Pack ma's o!"
  • Support - There are many books and literature writen in Bavarian language. A state-commission is collecting the language and is editing an dictionary. And there are also translations of books in this language on public market. So I'm in favor for this new Wikipedia and I'm willing to work on it. A problem might be that there is no standardized writen bavarian language, especially in scientific language. This would be one of the first big projects, wich this wikipedia has to work on. --Frantisek 09:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (N) - I don't perceive the differences between our regional dialects as a major problem. You can take enwiki as proof that spellings as different as British English and US English can get along quite nicely - not always, but most of the time. Could someone please alert me at en: when this edition gets started? TIA, HAND. --Nikai 14:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I want to distribute in my mother tongue. --€
  • Support - every single difference that may be saved and improved in Europe's languages is a treasure, go for it. We already have a lingua franca, which is called english, there is no need anymore for us to compress local cultures. I also like the idea of a linguistic multistandard. It works very well with occitan, too. Whenever the number of living speakers is very small it may be a good way to pump some fresh blood in the languages --bertodsera 21 march 2006
  • Support - I like this idea very much and would be willing to translate e.g. "my" marked "exzellent" or "lesenswert" de:Articles into my Bairisch mother tongue, although I'd of course as well continue to contribute to German wikipedia. I see no problems in sharing one language edition with our Austrian friends, even if in other times of history we haven't been actually friends, but that's been a matter of politics, not of linguistic differences and a common project could help to heal those wounds, build a desirable feeling of togetherness and prevent our beautiful language from being overrolled by aseptic TV-German! Strongly pro --Dominik Hundhammer 21:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Support - Bavarians and especially Bavrian as a dialect / languange has been surpressed and dilluted for decades. Particulary "prusssian" immigrants from nothern Germany have come to Bavaria, but have consitently refused to verbally assimilate into the existing culture. A Bavarian Wikipedia is thus certainly at least as necessary as a the Plattdeusch-Wiki.
  • Andreas - very strong support for the bayrisch nad südtirolerisch Wiki
  • Support, but a very strong one - I was just discussing this subjet in the last few weeks with some fiends. Now I see there is already a big discussion going on. So let´s get started and as we say in bavaria: 'Wia a Brez´n samma do dabei!' I really support the efforts of the web comunity to open a bavarian wikipedia. --Da Hermaneder 00:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: I want to support the bavarian wikipedia, because it's also good to protect that dialect, and not only the allemanic, and the plattdüütsch one. Even the Limburgs have a own Wikipedia. It's also notebal, that the bavarian dialect has approximately 12 million native speakers, and the allemanic speakers only 10 millionand the limburgish ones 1,5 million!!, this dialect isn't even so different than dutch. I'll help,of course, to establish the bavarian Wikipedia and i'll also help with writing the articles. It's not the nationalst view which makes me doing that, it's the fun of writing in my dialect, and to keep up the dialect up.

Can we ehm..contact each other, to work together with the bavarian wikipedia?And there are two bavarian sites, which is the right one? (tommy331@gmx.at) Thomas Huemer, 9.Juni 2006

  • Oppose (after talking as well with some outspoken bavarian people that oppose too). Do you know the huge difference between w:Südtirol and w:Oberpfalz (I know both regions) which you count as one dialect? This is patented nonsense. It has nothing to do with cultural ignorance of "high standard German" (whatever you call it) towards dialects. Creating a new standard Bavarian would be in contrast a cultural ingorance towards all the diverse people that call themselves bavarians. German has unlinke other languages so many variants (american English and british English are extemely close compared to German dialects) it is impossible creating a common bavarian dialect (every village has its own). And a short side notice: Standard German is not the language of the capital (unlike most other languages). Standard German is the common mixture out of all German dialects. Standard German did only replace existing languages/dialects in some regions (around w:Hanover for example). Arnomane 10:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: I like Bavarian accent. The differences in allemanian Languages are much higher (compare sytzerdütsch and allgäuerisch). It's easy: the one who writes an Article uses his dialect, others could read it without problems
  • Support - There is also another reason for a bavarian Wikipedia. Why do we have problems with writing and even reading Bavarian? Because we are not used to it. It is very important that there are a lot of written texts in a language (or dialect). Of course there are bavarian poems, stories and other books, but not that many. To have a broad platform on the internet, which covers all kinds of texts is very important. I believe, it is important to have also not only narrative, but also informative texts, as it would be with the wikipedia. And of course I would help to write texts and contribute to do this. (But what happened to the Test Wiki? Weren't there pages online before?)

American Sign Language/English (5 support; 6 oppose [thereof 1 anonymus vote])

Template:New-language-template

Comments
    • Support--Buzkid Because it give deaf same right to enjoy Wikipedia. Maybe having a Wiktionary of png files for every sign then arranging these with image tags and forming sentences you can see. Like writing with pictographs, something like chinese does with it's writing, but using A.S.L. grammar and order of words to display which is different from English written as I understand.

The median reading level for 18 year old deaf students is about the 4th grade level http://gri.gallaudet.edu/Literacy/#reading . Thus much of the internet and encyclopedias in general are inaccessible to these users due to the level of reading required. A survey of the readability of internet sites showed popular sites such a the NY Times and Nickelodeon were above 4th grade level (http://www.readability.info). The article on cats from Wikipedia receives the following scores Readability report for "cat" article in the English wikipedia readability grades: 

       Kincaid: 11.0
       ARI: 12.2
       Coleman-Liau: 13.4
       Flesch Index: 52.5
       Fog Index: 14.4
       Lix: 49.1 = school year 9
       SMOG-Grading: 12.8

As you can see these are all well above the 4th grade level. Although simple.wikipedia.org strives to provide a version of English that is easier to read it does not totally meet the needs of deaf users. The readability of the “cat” article in simple wikipedia hovers at or slightly above the 4th grade level on 2 measures of readability and is above 7th grade on 3 measures of readability. Readability report for "cat" article in simple wikipedia readability grades: 

       Kincaid: 4.6
       ARI: 3.9
       Coleman-Liau: 7.7
       Flesch Index: 85.4
       Fog Index: 7.4
       Lix: 27.0 = below school year 5
       SMOG-Grading: 7.7

To make information accessible to all deaf users sign language video is necessary that accompanies the English text. An ASL-English bilingual Wikipedia would provide deaf users with a tool for not only acquiring general world knowledge via an accessible medium (sign language video) but also a powerful educational tool for enhancing literacy by being able to compare the ASL video and English text. A tool is available for users to access the signs for each word of the English text. It is MySignLink and is available for free at http://www.aasdweb.com.MySignLink . An ASL-English Wikipedia will also provide deaf students with a national project that all students can contribute to while producing their everyday reports for their classes in Social Studies, Science, etc… It will be a great motivator for students to produce a product that is actually of use to others and a great lesson for them to learn that their labor can help others.

  • Dear ..., the idea is sympathic, but I am afraid it is incompatible with the nature of Wikipedia. If videos are supposed to accompany text, how can you edit them, just to name one major objection? I see a little possibility, however, if someone invents a special way of animation, similar to Wikihiero (where you can write texts in hieroglyphs), which makes it possible with a simple code to produce animations of ASL-signs. An article built up that way could be edited, though both the code would have to be very smart and the user must have a skill they can't acquire anywhere presently. For the time being, a sign language Wikipedia is impossible. Caesarion Velim, non opto 22:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea of making information accessible to users of sign languages (not only ASL) by means of videos available via the internet is surely a great one. However, I don't support this proposal for an American Sign Language/English Wikipedia for the following reasons:
- Sign languages are no written languages. Wikipedia is written literature.
- Like Ceasarion has already pointed out, ASL videos could not be created or altered in a wiki way. This wiki concept however is the very foundation upon which all Wikipedias are built.
- Bilingual editions are not part of Wikipedia's concept. The fact that even the proposers don't consider a monolingual edition (what would that homepage look like?) feasible shows that the idea is hardly workable.
- Wikipedias is not intended for purposes of language training or alphabetization ("...a powerful educational tool for enhancing literacy by being able to compare the ASL video and English text.").
- All websites made by deaf people for deaf people I have seen are in English (or any other non-sign-language). This, along with other personal experiences, intensifies my impression that natural languages are the preferred means of written communication among deaf persons and difficulties in being able to read them are not as severe as contended here.

My suggestion would be to create sign language videos and place them maybe on Commons on somewhere else on a Wikimedia server. Then you could add a link that says something like "Information on this subject is also available in ASL" (or maybe some catchy icon) to the English (or wherever it fits) WP article. On top of that I would like to add that I hope that deaf and hearing people will continue to cooperate fruitfully on the existing Wikipedias. Arbeo 10:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you have not worked in the field of deafness you have no idea of the difficulties a deaf reader has with English text. The information stated above in the proposal is accurate. Regardless of the reading ability of the deaf, it is just as legitimate to have a Wikipedia in American Sign Language as it is to have one in French, German, or any of the other natural languages represented in Wikipedias. ASL is a natural language. Broadening Wikipedia to include another medium (video) is a step forward not a violation of Wikipedia rites. It can allow users of other Wikipedias to add items to make their text clearer and bring Wikipedia into the 21st century. HHamilton
    • Thanks for your reply, HHamilton. You're right in that I actually can't imagine what it is like to learn a language without knowing what it sounds like. But if deaf people have such a hard time even reading English, why would you want them to write an encyclopedia in that language? I must admit having thought about ASL as a constructed language was slight misconception of mine. Having read a little more about the language and its origins now it's clear to me that it's a natural language. Regardless of that fact I've never questioned the legitimity of your proposal but rather the practicability of an ASL-English edition of Wikipedia. My concern is not about "rites" but rather about the quintessential principle of Wikipedia that any article must be instantly alterable by anyone at anytime. How do you do that with videos? Arbeo 10:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't there a system for writing ASL? As in, using symbols that represent the hand motions. I seem to recall reading that Unicode support for such a system was coming soon. I'd support creating a wiki using a written system, but I have concerns about the lack of editability of video -- it's very unwiki. Tuf-Kat 19:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there is a usable font: perfectly fine! You could then treat ASL just like any other language and simply grant it a monolingual Wikipedia (no need to make it bilingual with English). Arbeo 11:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • w:SignWriting might work with a system similar to the one for w:hieroglyphs, if it not is actually that system that is going to be added to Unicode. There is also a markup language (SWML, see WP article) available so even a solution similar to MathML could be used. Not sure how widespread the system is though. TERdON 12:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a way in which anyone can edit (anyone who can use the language, clearly), then there is no reason this shouldn't be set up. If this is not possible, it goes wholly against the wiki concept, and is thus unacceptable. Smoddy 20:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "editing" consider a video of ASL signing just as you would an image in Wikipedia. Wikipedia allows images to accompany the text but provides no way to edit the images other than complete replacement.

Thus, just as an image is "edited" via replacement a video can be edited via replacement. Deaf users will build the English text part of the ASL/English Wikipedia just as anyone would. The English grammar and syntax may be perfect or less than perfect just as with any writer of a Wikipedia article. Others will be able to edit the articles and refine the English if they like. OurMedia.org (http://www.ourmedia.org) can provide a nice home for the videos that are made. If users of the ASL/English Wikipedia want to edit a video via replacement, they can simply store their version at OurMedia and change the link in the English text page. HHamilton

    • But for a minor part of the encyclopaedia to be uneditable is one thing, to make the entire text (or nearest equivilent) uneditable is quite another. This is far more akin to the spoken articles project on en:. That is a subset of the main encyclopaedia, and thus works. I get the impression that this wouldn't work with ASL, and am sorry if that is the case. Nevertheless, if it is the case, I don't see why we should bend the rules to allow it in this instance. After all, not everyone can edit it. They would need video cameras and suitable equipment, as well as suitable software. A signed encylopaedia is a very good idea, but I don't think wiki is the way to achieve it. Smoddy 17:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless there is found a well editable way of writing down signs for the Wikipedia, understood by more than a specialized group of people. Putting signed articles on video certainly has its advantages, but it is not a wiki and as such not something to make a Wikipedia out of. - 81.70.91.207 22:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm a Valencian Sign Language user. Writting is capable not only on Oral Languages but also in Sign Languages. There are people willing to make an encyclopaedia in signwritting, why to ban them?. Remember diversity. In the other side, there are two more writting system for Signed Languages: HamNoSys from University of Hamburg (Germany), and latin alphabetic transcription of SL from University of Alacant (Valencia, Spain). --Joanot 13:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm absolutely not against ASL Wikipedia, in fact, I'm would support this proposal enthousiasticly, but only if some kind of system to write ASL (like Wikihiero) will be proposed. Of cource I'm not against ASL videos either, but if you want to use them alongside with English text, you can just start a project like w:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia on English wikipedia, upload the videos to the commons, and then make a template "This article is also availible as ASL video file" to put on each wikipedia article that have ASL video version. So you dont need to create new wikipedia for this. If the system to write ASL will be proposed, please let me know on my Russian discussion page, and I'll change my vote into "support" Kneiphof 08:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you think of a signed article as a signed version of an English article, you have a point. There is no reason at all why the ASL article would follow the English. From a language POV there is no direct relation between English and ASL. GerardM 15:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sign Languages and their users must not be excluded by such an important project! Why not using videos? Participants could upload their videos in addition to other articles. But it is important that the other sign languages of the world are represented too. If you open Wikipedia to Video-Articles all the Sign Languages of the world could be represent. A Sign Language portal could serve for articles in different Sign Languages. An example for Information in different Sign Languages on the net is: http://www.eudeaf2003.org/ Andreas Schodterer 2nd Nov. 2005
  • Support Sign languages are more different from the languages that are spoken in the same geographical area than the languages of the same language family. The only thing that is lacking is the proverbial army. GerardM 15:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This proposal misses some key points about wikis and Wikipedia itself. (1) A wiki is by nature a medium that is freely editable. A sentence of ASL on video is not editable with current technology. If I wanted to replace a particular sign, I would have to re-record the entire sentence. Watching a video like this would be excruciating, with a different signer every sentence, different video qualities, bad lighting, etc. A video wiki is not viable with current technology. (2) Sign languages do not have a written form that is in use by signers. Deaf people themselves write in English or whatever the language of their area. An article using an ASL writing system would not be readable by most Deaf people, and if you know sign language, is a very poor approximation of the expressiveness of sign language. Therefore, a written sign language wiki is not accessible by Deaf people. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 04:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania German (14 support; 1 oppose)

Template:New-language-template

Comments
Question: How close is it to the Pfaelzisch dialects in Germany? I understand that it is often considered a Pfaelzisch dialect. I think that, IF possible, it would be better to include PDC in a wider scope. If it's not reasonable, though, that's fine. --Node ue 08:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sheer number of English loan words in Pennsylvania German, and the three hundred year separation, plus the Swiss influence in PG etc.. would render it impossible to share an encyclopedia. Without certain English loan words, for example, the language would soon become incomprehensible to a speaker of Pennsylvania German. However, it is a good point of discussion. I know that the two dialects are pretty intercomprehensible, but to what extent, I am not sure. Also, Pfaelzisch has been influenced by Standard German over the last three hundred years and how close it is to the dialect spoken 300 years ago I can not answer. Stettlerj 18:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, try http://www.keramik-elwedritsche.de/paelzisch.html ... how much of it do you understand?

There is already a Pennsylvania German encyclopedia started with the hope that eventually it could be moved to pdc.wikipedia.org. There is some hesitation to help with the current project precisely because it is not at wikipedia.org. Before the Pennsylvania German encyclo becomes too big it probably should be moved to wikipedia.org. - Stettlerj

Someone who does not speak English might think it is an arbitrary mixture of Old English and French. Alsatian might seem to be an arbitrary mixture of dialectal German and French, but there's nothing arbitrary about it. I agree from the outside it might seem that way. Stettlerj 17:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, try http://www.keramik-elwedritsche.de/paelzisch.html ... how much of it do you understand? I think that in the long run, it would be better to have one WP for PD and Paelzisch; however if you can't read that page easily it may not be reasonable.
After trying to read the page, i can understand it a bit, but it is very hard to read. It is not an easy read. These are my thoughts...If it is a Paelzisch - Pennsylvania German encyclopedia, i don't think it will work. But, hey, I may be wrong, but my personal opinion, is that the Pennsylvania Germans will not read it or identify it as their own. It could work perhaps if articles about Europe for example were written in Paelzisch and articles that touch North America in Pennsylvania German... then perhaps it could work. So I would not rule it out. Stettlerj 23:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question... If we make it a Pfaelzisch - Pennsylvania Dutch encyclopedia, how many people are willing to contribute in Pfaelzisch? Stettlerj 22:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The Wiki-Project on "www.amisch.de" is growing, but some people would prefer to contribute to a Pennsylvania German encyclopedia, which is a part of the wikipedia project. Dont't think about establishing a Pennsylvania German / Palatine encyclopedia. I am a Palatine, and I can tell you that nearly every village has its own local dialect. Pennsylvania German is a language, which is more standardized. The best solution would be to move the existing wiki project to wikipedia.

Trasianka (5 support; 3 oppose)

Template:New-language-template

Comments

There is no ISO-code for this language.

No link to a Wikipedia article or whatsoever. We'd like to verify this information somehow. Please provide such a link, whether to en: or to be: or ru:, if you'll only enable us to look it up somewhere. Otherwise I can't support this request. Caesarion Velim, non opto 20:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added some links to wikipedia articles on Trasianka. However, I doubt it really needs a wikipedia. Belarusian and Russian are closely related anyway, and I don't think Trasianka is really distinct enough from either of them. It would be better (IMO) to support the Belarusian wiki, which is still quite small. --Chamdarae 20:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not really a recognized or established language (i.e. different people use different mix of Russian and Belarusian, no literature, etc). Ornil 00:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Belarusian language differs from Russian rather strongly, though they are closely related. It is much more likely that Bellorussians would understand (and be understood by) Ukranians [this two languages are most closely related to each other; much more than to Russian (neither to Polish)], than Russian would understand Belarusian language because of lots of differences mostly in lexics (thogh in syntaxis too). The only reason why Belarusians understand Russian is that evrybody in Belarus just KNOW Rusiian. Trasianka is strongly distinkt from Belarusian in lexics (espessially from non-official "Tarashkievica"-Belarusian, used in Wikipedia, which differs to Russian very much) and strongly distinkt from Russian in phonetics, spelling and, partly, in syntaxis. It may be called "half-way between Belarusian and Russian". Far enough from both of them to be identified as another language, though there should be no problems in understanding Trasianka, Belarusian and Russian in Belarus. But the reason for it is at least bilingualism of all Belarusians (they all know Russian), though Belarusian differs from Russian rather strongly. trasianka editor
Support, if user registers and provides more information about themselves. Belarusian and Russian are similar, yes, but Trasianka itself is quite distinct from both of them, and it will not be accepted at either the Belarusian or the Russian WP. --Node ue 06:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but conditional on establishing a firm community first. I have been in favour of a Stadsfries wikipedia for a long time, Stadsfries being a language with a similar history (also a blend of two similar languages, the vocabulary being largely Dutch and the language principles largely Frisian); so it seems to me that I can not oppose this Transianka. But, as was said before, it has no status or whatsoever, no literary history, no standard variety, so there should be a really firm community to get it off the ground. Caesarion Velim, non opto 10:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can also add, that it would be very simple for Bellorussians to translate articles from Russian to Trasianka, than to non-official "Tarashkievica"-Bellorussian, used in Wikipedia, even for not very educated people, because comparetivly Trasianka is not academic in such a degree. I can also propose translations from Bellorussian, Ukranian and Polish without any problems. trasianka editor 18:28, 17 October 2005
  • SupportI would be pleased to help to create Trasianka-version of Wiki. I can provide translations from German, Russian and English. It would be an interesting Web-projekt, which could help to begin the codifying of Trasianka language. Also I must say, that as non-literal spoken language Trasianka can provide rather wide vocabulary and would be easily understood by lots of users of Slavonic languages. Arirurang Takh
  • Hi Trasianka-Editor! I've been trying to find some more information on Trasianka but I still can't really figure out why it is considered a separate language here. Does it have any original words at all or are all words you use in Trasianka either Russian or Belarusian? Is there a dictionary or a grammar book? Is Trasianka used at all for writing non-fictional texts? Can it be considered a written language at all? Is it stabilized in any form? Is there a significant number of native speakers?
It's surely an interesting phenomenon but would the enormous effort of building an entire encyclopedia in that idiom really benefit anybody? I mean, would a native speaker of Belarusian not be served better by the Belarusian encyclopedia? So who would actually prefer to read and/or write a Trasianka Wikipedia instead the Belarusian or Russian editionArbeo 18:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lexics of trasianka is slavic. Trasianka vocabulary is based on russian and belarusian lexics, pronounced (and spelled) in a very specific way. The percentage of the original lexics actually is rather low. But though allmost all the words are of the belarusian or russian origin, they shouldn't be called elements of either Russian or Belarusian because the words are used in the Trasianka kontext. Trasianka was never officially called a language (or even a dialect!), so, unfortunately, there aren't neither any dictionaries (because it is used to suggest, that Trasianka hasn't its own vocabulary), nor grammar books (Trasianka grammar is very close to russian with some belarussian influation. It is the same situation with the Belarusian syntaxis, which was never recognised to be different from Russian...). Trasianka of cause can be considered a written language, because its specific pronounciation can be easily transcripted with the help of cyrillic alphabet (close to modern official Belarusian alphabet/orthography - but not "Tarashkievica" (mostly used in belarusian Wikipedia) or "Łacinka" variants - both controversial and non-official). Trasianka has allways been a spoken, traditional language, therefore in some cases it is rather variable/not-stabilized. The number of native speakers is rather big, because Trasianka is widely used in {villagers<->towners; officials<->non-officials; small-town-inhabitants<->big-town-inhabitants} contacts mostly in Mahilouskaja, Homielskaja, Mienskaja and Viciebskaja voblaśc'es (regions) of Belarus. The problem is that its users often do not identify themselves as Trasianka-native-speakers, because for many years (untill now) they were used to identify Belarusian as their mother-tongue, although you can hardly ever hear official, literal form of Belarusian: people use either region dialects (among there small communites which may include only one village) or Trasianka (with others) -- they just don't know and can't speak literal, classic variants (pronounciation/a big amount of "high" lexics) of Belarusian (nor Russian). A lot of people in Belarus are native speakers of at least two languages or more, Trasianka including - of cause Russian and Belarusian are officially let me call it "stronger", "more powerfull", in a "higher position". But I suppose that Trasianka has a right to be representated among all the Wiki-languages. trasianka editor 02:44, 22 October 2005
  • This is a very interesting proposal. I don't know if I should support or not, since I think creole languages that aren't literary shouldn't really have a Wikipedia, at least not in this context. A lot of us here in Transylvania use Hungarian words in our day-to-day Romanian vocabulary - we would say "De ce cioleşti?" instead of "De ce trişezi?" for "Why are you cheating?" or "Te invit la un langoş" instead of "Te invit la o plăcintă" for "I'm inviting you to have a pie". This is because of the large Hungarian minority here. Hungarians do it too, in reverse (substituting Romanian words for Hungarian ones). I think, from reading above, that this is the same as what happens in Trasianka. Am I right or wrong - is it just code-switching - the incorporation of Russian words into Belarusian - or an actual separate language brought about by a more complete fusion between the two languages? Ronline 08:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ronline, using a few Hungarian words does not mean you speak a creole. See en:Creole language. Creole languages usually have simplified grammars. In fact, they aren't a fusion of the vocabulary of two languages but rather they use almost exclusively the single parent language, with some minor vocabulary influences. Now, Trasianka can't really be considered a creole, but rather a mixed language. It is an actual separate language brought about by a more complete fusion of two languages -- a mix of Russian and Belarusan grammar and vocabulary and phonology, with fixed expressions and largely (although not totally) fixed vocabulary characteristic of fully formed languages.
  • Oppose. --Võrok 12:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Rather interesting project. I think it would very interesting first of all for other slavic autors (and users), especially for those, who, for example, knows Russian, but didn't know anything about Trasianka. So it would be a fine possibility for studying such a linguistic phenomenon as Trasianka language. --Porjidlo 17:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm willing to help this project. It is really interesting. I hope it will succeed. --Jan-ivan 18:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. -- Belgian man (nl na en) 16:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belgian man and Võrok, could you please explain your position not just to ignore the idea but to oppose it, it would better for the discussion to know your arguments I think. trasianka editor 19:47, 18 November 2005

Veluws (5 support; 6 oppose; 1 neutral)

See related request for all LS varieties of NL: Nedersaksisch

  • People interested [if native speaker, please mark (N)]:
    • Proposer's user account in Meta and other wikis:
    • User accounts of others who are willing to work on the proposed wiki:
  • ISO code : vel
  • proposed domain: http://vel.wikipedia.org/wiki/
  • Relevant infos: One of the Dutch official languages just like Frisian and Limburgs
  • Link to request on a mailing list:
  • Last comments: Requested DLS before, seems too much resistence, hopefully there is more support for this wiki.
  • Summary of support:
  1. Caesarion Velim, non opto Having an East Veluws speaking granny
  2. Bart - if no nds-nl, second choice.
  3. Node ue
  4. Chamdarae
  5. Tuf-Kat
  • Summary of opposition:
  1. Arbeo
  2. Gerrit
  3. Raetius
  4. Frünn
  5. Servien (N)
  6. Blockinblox
Comments from users
    • Oppose. This is merely a dialect of the Low Saxon language. Wikipedias for dialects are unnecessary and not in line with the project's primary aim. Arbeo 13:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know but this is what the opposition wants... nds-nl is a language, this is a subdivision of the language so please make up your minds, is it this one or DLS? Servien 13:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Servien, keep in mind that Arbeo has opposed the Wikipedia in Riparian as a "dialect", despite the fact that it is clearly an independent language. Requests are dynamic, suppport and oppose votes will be added ovrer time. Don't just remove the request after a day because one person opposes it. --Node ue 09:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Not sure why this req. was deleted -- most other requests are left up for a few months. I have added it back. --Node ue 09:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as long as a Wikipedia for all Dutch Low Saxon variants is thought to be unfeasible. Indeed Veluws and Sallands are quite similar; East Veluws and Sallands are even close to being the same variant. All these Low Saxon dialects share a big Hollandic influx in the vowels, in contrast to Twents and Graafschaps retaining their older values and Gronings breaking them into diphthongs. Caesarion Velim, non opto 10:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Of course it depends ultimately on what native speakers want, but I think in the long term it would be better to have distinct wikipedias for each of the main Low Saxon languages / dialect groups in the Netherlands than one wikipedia including all of them. --Chamdarae 17:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, basically because I agree with Chamdarae, though I don't rule out the nds-nl wiki. Tuf-Kat 01:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I would support if it would be without Sallands. Belgian man 12:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC) (deleted by myself, Belgian man (nl na en) 17:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • Oppose - dialect of Nedersaksisch (Low Saxon), not a seperate language of its own. Gerrit 11:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (dito) Raetius 10:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Definitely no seperate language. Frünn 15:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (revised vote from support to oppose) Node is so full of kak, he tries everything to block the creation of nds-NL, first he wants dialect wikis and later wants to put everything together with the German-Low Saxon wikipedia, Node mentioned "experts" said it would work, fact is it definately won't, and it doesn't work! Low Saxon (NL) is now suddenly allowed at the wiki, most users there are German and don't understand it unless they speak Dutch, effect being users have to check the wikipedia with a microscope for Dutch-based articles, so instead they are forced to the Dutch wiki. (If this was viable why do you think I would waste time on suggesting this wiki!) it doesn't solve our problem at all! Also the wiki has been approved several times by different people and because mister Node is against he deletes it. His attempts can be seen as pure vandalism and obstruction of freedom of speech imho! Servien 11:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Blockinblox 14:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Netral. Veluws is Low Saxonic dialect, but on the ege mixes allot with dutch. so maybe a separate wiki. - Todmir

Zlatiborian language (6 support, 12 oppose)

Template:New-language-template

Comments
  • This Wikipedia has been requested before (by me), but since I found little support of other users, I've deleted the request.--Ђорђе Д. Божовић 14:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sellack Alex and George, both on en: and here, a lot of people made clear that the Zlatiborian language and this request were mere hoaxes, and though I know very little about Serbian dialects it seems clear to me that they are right. Besides, your edits are even considered "vandalism" there. Come on, Wikipedia is not for jokes. Withdraw this silly "request" now! Caesarion Velim, non opto 15:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You would recognize the difference if you could just see some examples of it. Zlatiborian and Serbian are very similar, but a Serbian would say: Nigde na svetu nema lepsega grada od Beograda, but a Zlatiborian says: Nidje na svijetu nema ljepseg grada od Biograda. Or, while a Serbian says: Letos behosmo u Gruziji, posecivasmo hramove i manastire, a Zlatiborian would say: Ljetos bijasmo u Djurdjiji, posjecivasmo crkve i manastire, etc.

Former Yugoslavia is an area of a lot of disagreements. For example, there was no Bosnian language when Bosnia was part of Yugoslavia, and there also were no Croatian, Montenegrin and other languages. Serbian linguists recognized Bosnian language in 2004! And Montenegrin, Zlatiborian, etc. are still not recognized by Serbia. All these languages are similar. They are so similar that their speakers often don't need a translator to understand each other, but they are not as similar as Serbian linguists present them. Plus, if Zlatiborian really is only a dialect of Serbian, and Serbian Wikipedia is in literary Serbian only, than really should be a Zlatiborian Wikipedia, since it would be Serbian (or better say Serbo-Croatian) dialectical (regional) edition. Any way you look, Zlatiborians do need their language/regional edition Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects to work on in their (mine too) native language/dialect.--Ђорђе Д. Божовић 13:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am quite well aware of the Serbian Croatian and Bosnian case - to me it is just largely a political case. But why was it impossible to convince any of the users that Zlatiborian is something of a distinct variant? All of them voted for deletion, and really, not all of them are Serbian nationalists, I can tell you. Caesarion Velim, non opto 16:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those who weren't Serbian nationalists were foreigners who are not introduced with the situation. However, Serbo-Croatian languages are languages used in all of the former Yugoslavia, including some regions in neighbouring countries, too. All South Slavic nationalities speak discint dialect of that language. Serbo-Croatian languages (you may say dialects) are base for standardisation of the literary languages: Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, Montenegrin, Zlatiborian... Dialects of Serbo-Croatian are spoken by the whole people of Yugoslavia, but literary languages developed from Serbo-Croatian preserved many local (dialectical) characteristics and they remained very similar, but still different. For example, Croats and Zlatiborians say kava (coffee), Serbs say kafa, Bosniaks say kahva, and Montenegrins say kava or kafa, depending on Montenegrin dialect (northern or southern); or Croats and Bosniaks say sjever (north), Serbs say sever, Zlatiborians say šjever, and Montenegrins say sjever or śever, depending on newer or older standardisation of the Montenegrin language. Those are variants of a same word, and they all can understand each other, but look at this: Serbs and Bosniaks say hotel, Croats say gostionica, Zlatiborians say konačište, while Montenegrins use all these forms. As you can see, some languages often use the same words. In the first example (coffee), Croatian, Zlatiborian, and Monetenegrin were same, in the second example (north) Croatian and Bosnian were same, in the third (hotel) Bosnian and Serbian were same... Montenegrin is very specific about this - it has different forms depending on dialect and standardisation age. Northern Montenegrin dialect are very similar to Zlatiborian, they are almost same, while the southern dialect is different. Plus, the older standardisation is closer to Croatian language, and the new Montenegrin standardisation is based on southern dialect and is different. Discussing the Serbo-Croatian dialects is an interesting theme, but it takes some political controversies as you said. I know many people that are willing to work on Zlatiborian Wikipedia if it opens. Creating the Zlatiborian Wikipedia would show if the language (dialect if you want to say so) is different from Serbian or not. Beside, you can always ask for locking up the Zlatiborian Wikipedia and other projects in Zlatiborian if you think that it should be done, right?--Ђорђе Д. Божовић 17:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nicola Shishovich: Support as a native speaker who wants to work on it.
  • Supportski para estiquerle al Hombre. --Node ue 00:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Skafa 21:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We don't need any more Serbo-Croatian wikipedias - 4 is more than enough. --Chamdarae 01:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Firstly, let me say that I'm usually very enthusiastic towards the creation of new language Wikipedias. I also recognise the fact that what used to be called dialects in the past by various nationalists are actually languages, and that regional languages are a very important, but only recently-appreciated, part of linguistic heritage and therefore must be strongly supported. It is for this reason that I supported the founding of the Aromanian Wikipedia, which many people consider to be a Romanian dialect; the Voro Wikipedia, which many consider to be an Estonian dialect; the Samogitian Wikipedia, which many consider to be a Lithuanian dialect; the Occitan Wikipedia, which some consider to be a French dialect. However,, even in this context, I oppose the Zlatiborian Wikipedia because there is virtually no documentation on it out there (it borders on original research, even) and from the samples you have given me, it seems very similar to Serbian or Croatian. The fact is - maybe the speech is a bit different, but is there actually a well-defined written form? I come from Transylvania in Romania, and here we speak a dialect of the Romanian language - an actual dialect, not one that is actually a language. This Tranyslvanian dialect has a number of differences to the standard dialect of Romanian - some sounds are changed, verbs are contracted, etc. For example, instead of saying "Eu sunt foarte..." (I am very...) we say something sounding like "Io îs fõrte". Instead of "cartofi" (potatoes) some of us use the regionalism "croampe". As you can see, when you write it down, the difference is not smaller than the difference between Zlatiborian and Serbian. But a version in Transylvanian would be absurd, if only because there isn't a consistent written standard. There are just regional words and regional differences of speech that people use arbitrarily. If we approve Zlatiborian, it means having a version in all the possible speech differences that people make in a language, and speech varies so much more significantly than the written form. This would mean having - in the case of Romania, about 15 Wikipedias, in Serbia maybe 15, in France maybe another 15, in the United States maybe 15 (because even there speech changes - a Texan pronounces a word differently than a New Yorker)... all in all, much too many! What I'm trying to say is - we don't have Wikipedias for regional dialects or variants, but rather for regional languages. Zlatiborian can only be accepted if it's a separate language, not if it's a regional variation of the Serbian language. Maybe I'm on the wrong track here - if yes, I'm open to discussion. Ronline 08:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT, can't wait to tell the others! -- Danka 1:24, 30 October 2005 (CEST)
    • Ronline, you say instead of saying "Eu sunt foarte..." (I am very...) we say something sounding like "Io îs fõrte". Instead of "cartofi" (potatoes) some of us use the regionalism "croampe". So, not all of you say croampe, and you don't write Io îs fõrte, but saying something that sounds like that, right? Although Zlatibor is part of Serbia, and Serbian is the only official language, we don't use Serbian and Zlatiborian words equally. We speak Zlatiborian (usually with friends and family) or Serbian (in formal situations), but not both mixed. And in Zlatiborian, if we say something, we write it in that very same way, we don't have the same words like in Serbian that are just pronounced differently, no! --Danka 1:52, 30 October 2005 (CEST)
      • But does Zlatiborian actually have a written tradition? I mean, do people actually write in Zlatiborian? I could technically write Transylvanian - and in many colloquial texts and novels people have used "Transylvanian", especially in dialogue - but the dialect doesn't have a standard form or written tradition. With the "Io îs fõrte" example, I meant pronunciation. We wouldn't write it like that. And in Transylvania, when we deal with the public administration, or even in shops, people generally speak closer to standard Romanian, whereas at home, especially in rural areas, we speak with more Hungarian words, with more Transylvanian colloquialisms. What I'm trying to get at - if you can show me that Zlatiborian has a standard written form different to Serbian, and is mentioned in a credible source as a language, rather than an accent or a dialect, I will wholeheartedly support it. I appreciate the efforts of the six users here who have tried to promote Zlatiborian, and for that I'm keeping an open mind :) Ronline 06:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • First book printed in Zlatiborian was one Orthodox gospel from the monastery of Rujno, at the north of Zlatibor, in 1535, only 50 years after Gutenberg's invention of movable type. Zlatiborian always used Cyrillic alphabet, although some Zlatiborians today write using the Latin alphabet. Cyrillic is still official, however. Zlatiborian alphabet is called Azbuka, after the first two letters, that are called az and buki. Azbuka has been changed upon the time. The first Zlatiborian Azbuka had 42 letters. That number was decreasing, as the language was changing and some letters became unnecessary, and the current Zlatiborian Azbuka was formed by the beginning of the 19th century. It is identical to Serbian alphabet, both alphabets have 30 identical letters. Only those letters have different names in Serbian and in Zlatiborian. For example, Zlatiborian letters az and buki are in Serbian called a and b. Zlatiborian isn't just a local pronounce as Transylvanian. We write the language that we speak, and exactly the way we speak. Zlatiborian, like the other Slavic languages, has the phonetic orthography, which means that all words are written just as they are pronounced. Of course, there are few exceptions. But generaly, our language is very, very easy for spelling. :) --Danka 10:47, 31 October 2005 (CEST)
Actualy, Azbuka was originated by Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, from na older alphabet, and is now a Serbian name for alphabet, which was named (alphabet) after first two letters in Greek alphabet - alpha and beta. What you wrote here is a histori of Serbian Cyrillic Alphabet. You are making this up as you go. Бране Јовановић 11:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neutral - Is there a single renowned linguist in the world (outside former Yugoslavia) who would consider this a separate language? Of course, I don't want to deny the inhabitants of Zlatibor the right to consider their local idiom a "language". But then again, spoken language differs slightly from the written standard everywhere. In fact, strictly spoken no two individuals in the world share a completely identical language. For that reason, in order to facilitate written communication among people, common standards have been set up. For the area and the linguistic continuum Zlatibor is part of, that written standard language is Serbian (or, according to others, Serbo-Croatian). I'm trying to consider this issue as unprejudiced as possible but still can't think of a single reason why Wikimedia Foundation should support an encyclopedia written in a small local dialect. Such a project would most certainly not be in line with Wikipedia's goals. Arbeo 10:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC) (change Arbeo 18:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose - Belgian man 12:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Danka said it all correctly: Zlatiborian has a written tradition. It is not a dialect of the neighboring Serbian language, it is the discint language that has its own dialects (those are Eastern and Western Zlatiborian dialect). I don't see what there is not to be understood. Zlatiborian is not a spoken variant of Serbian, but you somehow keep thinking that Zlatiborian is written in same way as Serbian, and just spoken differently. Please, Zlatiborian words are pronounced in the very same way that they are written (with few exceptions). So, if the pronounce is different, then the written language is different, too. And if words are written differently, then they are pronounced differently, too. In Zlatiborian you write as you speak, and you read as it's written (again, there are few exceptions). So Zlatiborian is different from other South Slavic languages (including Serbian) in writing and in pronouncing. It is similar to Serbian, in fact Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin and Zlatiborian are very similar languages, so similar that they were considered to be one single language, called Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian. That language was the official language of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia, a former country, was an unitary country for all Southern Slavs except Bulgarians. Yugoslavia actually means the country of Southern Slavs. An unitary country had an unitary language... When Croatia and Bosnia got independence from Yugoslavia, Croatian and Bosnian were admitted as distinct languages. The Serbs, people with the biggest population in Yugoslavia, with ideas of uniting the whole Balkans under their power (so-called Greater Serbia), didn't want to admit the difference. The theory of the unitary Serbo-Croatian language actually was their idea. Yugoslavia became smaller country than before - without of Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, and Macedonia, it remained with Montenegro and Serbia only (with Sanjak, Zlatibor, Vojvodina, Kosovo, Krajina, and other nonautomous regions within Serbia). Now nationalism rose in Serbia, and Slobodan Milosevic, the nationalist leader of the Socialist Party became the president. Serbo-Croatian still was the official language in the smaller Yugoslavia, but then that idea was left, and Serbo-Croatian was renamed to Serbian, under Milosevic's nationalist preassure. According to Serb linguists, there are no Montenegrin, Zlatiborian, and Bosnian languages, but Serbian only, and Croatian, the only discint language they admitted. In 2005, Serbs finally admitted Bosnian, too. Montenegro and Zlatibor are still parts of Yugoslavia (that in 2004 changed its name to the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro), and Montenegrin and Zlatiborian are still not admitted by the Serbs. They claim that Montenegrin and Zlatiborian are dialects of Serbian. Actually, according to them, the Zeta-Southern Sanjaki dialect is spoken in Montenegro, and the Eastern Herzegovinian dialect is spoken in Zlatibor (although Zlatibor is far away from Herzegovina). They even refuse to use the adjectives Montenegrin and Zlatiborian. And the only language admitted by the Serbia's central power as the official country's one is Serbian. However, Zlatiborian remains to exist through the every-day language of the Zlatiborians, and through the literature that is in Zlatiborian published by several Zlatiborian publishing houses. Come on, you guys, the language really exists!
I am very close to changing my vote to support. However, some things need to be cleared up. Firstly - is written Zlatiborian ever used in public life? Things like the media, shops, etc.? Secondly, I think you'll have a very hard time convicing enough people at Wikimedia that Zlatiborian is an actual language, separate from Serbian and with a literary tradition. That is because when you search for "Zlatiborian" on Google, the first search result is from the Wikimedia network. There are virtually no external sources on Zlatiborian. The fact that the English Wikipedia article on the language got deleted, and that the Babel template was declared a hoax, all reduce the credibility of this project. I'm not expressing my personal viewpoint here, but the perceived views of the community. I think this is one of the most controversial language proposals yet, and while I appreciate the organised way in which the Zlatiborian Wikipedia team have presented their arguments, and their hard work so far, I think there still is a lot to be done in actually convincing people to support this project. Additionally, zb is not an acceptable subdomain code. Languages that don't have ISO codes conventionally get the generalised language family ISO code followed by the SIL code (for Aromanian, the code was roa-rup, "roa" meaning Other Romance languages and "rup" being the SIL code for Aromanian - now Aromanian has its own ISO code - rup, so the Wikipedia should be moved there). Anyway, so because Zlatiborian has neither an ISO code neither a SIL code, there is quite a problem. I think the SIL code can be substituted by a three-letter code like "zbr", so the code should be sla-zbr. Using just zb goes against Wikimedia convention and is unfair when other languages, that are actually recognised by linguistic bodies get much longer codes. Ronline 07:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at things from a different angle (yes, I'm capable of doing that!) it doesn't seem more illogic to have separate wiki for Zlatiborian than one for Bosnian. Still, the issue Ronline mentions persists: there seems to be absolutely no mention of the language, neither in books nor on the Internet. I mean, since you're not some undiscovered tribe somewhere in the highlands of New Guinea, how can that be? Anyway - I'll contact a slavicist at our university sometime soon and find out what is their view on the subject. Arbeo 09:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually some people have suggested that there shouldn't be separate wikipedias for Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian either, especially since there's a Serbo-Croatian wikipedia as well. In most cases there has been resistance among the community to starting new wikipedias in what are obviously mutually intelligible varieties of a single language (eg American English, Brazilian Portuguese, Triestin, etc etc). Serbo-Croatian is one of the few languages where wikipedias have been set up for different national varieties of a single language. Maybe there should be more discussion about having multiple wikipedias for a single language. I agree Zlatiborian (and Montenegrin) should be treated the same as any other variety of Serbo-Croatian, as well as national / regional varieties of English, Portuguese and other languages. But I don't think having separate wikipedias is the answer. --Chamdarae 19:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Chamdarae, while Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian form pretty much part of a linguistic continuum, Montenegrin and Zlatiborian have some sharp differences. Many people think of Zlatiborian as a sort of mix of Slovene and Serbian, and Montenegrin even has a bigger alphabet than Serbian. --Node ue 19:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Arbeo, you wrote since you're not some undiscovered tribe somewhere in the highlands of New Guinea, how can that be?, asking for how come there's no any mention of Zlatiborian at the Internet. Well, you see, we actually are some kind of a tribe living somewhere in the highlands. We are in Europe, but we live on a mountain Zlatibor (actually, I live in the near-by Serbian city Uzice, where lives mixed Serbian and Zlatiborian population, and the local population speaks a variant of Zlatiborian, but my family is originally from Mt. Zlatibor). Zlatibor's highest peak is Tornik at 1497 meters, and other places are just about 500 meters lower. Secondly, most of Zlatiborian families are organized somehow very similar to old Slavic tribes. We are a people that have very long tradition and customs that we practice since the Middle Ages. Kraljeve Vode, Zlatibor's capital, and Cajetina, Zlatibor's old capital, are the only urban towns at Mt. Zlatibor, other places are villages where people still keep cows, pigs, sheep, and other animals. In Zlatiborian villages people still live like long time ago. They have electricity, phones, and television, but their lifestyle is not much different than the lifestyle of their grand-grandparents. Some villages (like Mackat, Sirogojno, Mokra Gora, Kremna, Sljivovica, etc.) are closer to the 21st century, and they even have computers. In Kraljeve Vode and Cajetina situation is much better. There people live in a very modern and European usual way. So why there are no mention of Zlatiborian on the Net? Because computers get to Zlatibor several years ago, and it's not practice there for firms to have their pages yet. However, there are a few sites about Zlatibor made by the Serbs (they love coming to Zlatibor for their summer and winter holidays - the mountain is very famous at the whole Balkans). Don't make me wrong now, there are a lot of people in Zlatibor who are able to work with computers, but making sites on the Internet is not their practice. Also, who could say anything about Zlatiborian when the communist power presented Serbo-Croatian, and Serbian nationalist leader Slobodan Milosevic admitted only Serbian. "zb" is very suitable code for Zlatiborian, because Zlatibor got its name after two Zlatiborian words: zlato (gold) or zlatni (golden), and bor (pine tree). If there must be three-letter code, it should be "zlt" or "zlb" or "zla". It should be voted. And one more thing, Ronline asked is Zlatiborian used in books and media. Yes, certainly! There is only one Zlatiborian TV channel so far, and that's TV "Cajetina". I think that TV "Zlatibor" is supposed to be created soon. Several years ago, before TV "Cajetina" there was TV "Cigota", the first Zlatiborian TV channel (Cigota is name for one of the Zlatibor's peaks). About books, Zlatiborians are well-known through the Balkans as very smart and clever nation. Living in an area of a very fresh and clean air, totally natural, with a lot of clean, good water, and healthy food, Zlatiborians always were symbol of South Slavic literacy and smartness. Milisav Djenic, his daughter Nena Djenic-Ajdanic and Ljubisa Djenic are well-known Zlatiborian historians, who wrote plenty books about the history of Zlatibor. Michael Cupovic (1934-2004) was the most famous Zlatiborian poet. We was writing poems for kids, poems about Zlatibor, about the love, and about life in a village. His poems are something that every Zlatiborian kid learns the first of all. Ljubivoje Rsumovic is even more famous poet from Zlatibor, but he moved away to Belgrade, Serbia, and declarating himself as a Serb, he wrote in Serbian. His poems are very good, and that's something every Serbian kid learns the first... In addition, Mirjana Stakic and Dobrosav Obradovic are two more Zlatiborian writers, but less known. Mirjana Stakic was director of the National Library in Cajetina, and she is representative of the modern poetry. He also wrote novels, such as Anina prica (Ann's story), the perl of Zlatiborian literature. As I heard, her new novel about some Zlatiborian woman that fought Turks in the Middle Ages (Turks hold Zlatibor 1463-1807) was published several days ago. Dobrosav Obradovic was very smart kid, he is probably the youngest writer in the world - his first book of poems was published when he was five years old. As you can see, usage of the Zlatiborian is concetrated on Mt. Zlatibor and neighboring regions, such as Uzice. You actually can find something about Zlatiborian on the Internet if you look for златиборски језик or just златиборски, but that's in Zlatiborian, so that wouldn't help, would it? Oh, by the way, comparing Croatian, Bosnian, Zlatiborian, Montenegrin, and Serbian with American and British English or Brasilian and real Portuguese isn't good enough. Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, Zlatiborian and Serbian are more different than American and British English are. First of all, Croatian and Montenegrin are Latin, Zlatiborian is Cyrillic, and Serbian and Bosnian are both Cyrillic and Latin. Croatian, Bosnian, Zlatiborian, and Montenegrin use the Ijekavski way to replace the Old Slavonic letter yat, while Serbian uses Ekavski way to replace yat. In addition, there are some Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian dialects that use the non-literal Ikavski way of replacing yat. Plus, every language has its own vocabulary, with many similar or totally same words, but many different, too. Arbeo, you are right - if there are separate Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian wikis, there should be Zlatiborian and Montenegrin, too. Having these two additional wikis would completely cover the whole area of former Yugoslavia, and every man would find wiki best for him to work on. I think that there is some other language in eastern Serbia that is closer to Macedonian than to Serbian, but is considered as a Serbian dialect. It is very specific, its speakers really declarate themselves as Serbs (most of them, some are declarated as Macedonians, Bulgarians, and Romas), but that language/dialect has declension, verb forms, and vocabulary very different from Serbian. This language is called Pirotian, Svrligian, Nisavan, Leskovan, etc., I'm not sure what's its real name. You should check this, too, and see if this wiki should be created, so anybody from former Yugoslavia and the whole Western Balkans would be able to work on his native language Wikipedia. --Danka 12:11, 3 November 2005 (CEST)
OK - just a few more questions (I am learning a lot about my region, Southeastern Europe, from this!) This point that not many people have web pages in Zlatibor doesn't really explain the fact that there is no content in this language on the Internet. I have searched for "златиборски језик" and Wikipedia is still the first result, with no other results. I have also searched for TV "Cajetina". No results that mention a Zlatiborian language. The other thing is - does this TV station broadcast in Zlatiborian, with captions written in Zlatiborian, different from Serbian? When TV Zlatibor will broadcast, will it be in Zlatiborian, different from Serbian, written differently than Serbian? Does Zlatiborian have a standard written version? Or, because it is written like it is spoken, it differs across different localities in the Zlatibor. Other than that, I would love to support the Zlatiborian Wikipedia. The fact that there is absolutely no coverage on this language, when there is coverage on much smaller and obscure languages, is a problem. Ronline 07:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comprehensive reply, Danka! Well, my point wasn't exactly that there should be Zlatiborian and Montenegrin Wikipedias because there are already Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian ones. I was simply acknowledging the existance of a special situation here (which is not considered ideal by many). Then again, languages are very complex structures that are subject to historical, politicial, social, religious, economic and many other, even emotional, influences. Therefore, evaluating requests solely from a linguistic perspective will not always do justice to such complex situation. After considering all aspects yet once more, I've come to two conclusions: 1) I must change my vote to "neutral" 2) I must visit your region some day. Arbeo 18:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Many people from all over the world visit Zlatibor. Every day of the year there is atleast one hundred tourists here. Atleast, no matter is it summer, winter, spring, or autumn! Many foreign languages can be heard here, most of all English, French, Russian, Slovenian, Greek... and Serbian. More than half of Serbia is coming to Zlatibor anually. They just love this mountain, maybe that's why they want it so much to be totally theirs. When I search Google for златиборски језик or zlatiborski jezik, I find some stupid sites that just count statistics of the region. A few years ago, The Zlatiborian Language Institute was founded in Cajetina, and today it's settled in Kraljeve Vode (translated to English, the name of this town would be the King's Waters). I've worked at the Department for the Regional Demography of this Institute from 1994 to 1996, but I'm still in contact with other people working there, and I think they will soon make their Web site. But that's just a rumor, I can't say for sure. About spelling and pronouncing, yes, we do write in the very same way as we speak (with a few small exceptions), and no, it's not true that everyone writes in his own way as he speaks. Zlatiborian is a standardised language, and we write and speak in the way that's been normed by the specialised linguists during the 19th and the 20th centuries. There are two dialects of the Zlatiborian language: Western, the dialect that's been used in Zlatiborian literature, and the literary language is based on it; and Eastern, that is spoken in the regions of Zlatibor closer to Serbia, and some influence of Serbian can be found in this dialect. These dialects are not different by the accentuation, nor by the vocabulary; they are just different by the historical development, with Western as the original Zlatiborian, and Eastern as the dialect infuenced by the Serbian language, with some words coming from the Serbian vocabulary.
Well, many people, including a lot of Dutchmen, go to Amsterdam, and so I am to conclude that the Amsterdam speech is a separate dialect as well? Caesarion Velim, non opto 22:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This seems to be a rather complex hoax perpetrated by Ђорђе Д. Божовић (Đorđe D. Božović). Other "native speakers" supporting this language (SellackAlex, Nicola Shishkovich, Danka) are most probably his sockpuppets with names based on real life acquaintances for an added dose of "realism". Is it possible to somehow check this? --Elephantus 10:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it could be a hoax. That's the confusing thing - the native Zlatiborian speakers here have put in a lot of work for this proposal, but there is no proof at all that this language actually exists. And a lot of the justification seems made up, like "websites will be coming soon", "there is not much Internet in Zlatibor". Anyway, what made me suspicious was this message: "Interesting... I don't find myself irresponsible. However... I've asked for deletion of those articles, they really were stupid. I'm sorry, I've made confuse in Wikipedia. It was a little joke. Sorry again.--Ђорђе Д. Божовић 12:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)" at User talk:Millosh#Romsko srpski jezik and "I've deleted the request for Zlatiborian Wikipedia. There's no such thing as the Zlatiborian language, it was a joke.--Ђорђе Д. Божовић 12:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)". Could you explain please? Was this some sort of bet or project on how you can deceive Wikimedia in order to found the first Wikipedia in an inexistent language (if yes, I'm requesting the creation of a Wikipedia in the Rogerian language, the language spoken in the Rogerius quarter of Oradea, Romania ;) Ronline 10:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason for this is partly due to the cultural history of Zlatibor. Djordje was shamed for telling the truth, and ridiculed. So, he withdrew it and gave the explanation of "it was a joke" to avoid the further shame from Serbian nationalists. Now, he saw that this was actually proposed by somebody else. Before, he was the only one supporting his position, and it was weak for that. But this time, instead, somebody else proposed, and now the truth can prevail. --Node ue 19:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I think it is not as much a hoax as a typical case of balkanisation. When Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak and Montenegrin are all to be considered seperate languages, the Zlatibor dialects might different enough from standard Serbian to be considered just another language in the Serbo-Croatian spectrum. So in the minds of the proposers, it will surely be a language. I however think breaking up the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia was already undesirable from a linguistic point of view, but elevating another regional variant of it which isn't even official anywhere would create a hell of a precedent: you'd have to admit hundreds, even thousands of new Wikipedias in slightly different regional variants. But why don't you set up a Wikicity? Caesarion Velim, non opto 10:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Language does not exists as such, only in the head of Ђорђе Д. Божовић, who's been advocating it all along. This is his 3rd or 4th try at this, and he only refines his arguments, doesn't give any new supporting evidence, and apologizes every time for his "irresponsibility" --Бране Јовановић 11:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet another Serbian nationalist who wants to continue the oppression of the illustrious history of Zlatibor, its illustrious people, and beautiful language. Why, I ask, is it that all Zlatiborians have voted "yes", but all Serbian nationalists have voted "no"? It went the same way with all Zlatiborian language votes on en.wikipedia. --Node ue 05:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I suppose you are the one to tell who is a nationalist and who is a helpless defender of the poor language that doesn't exist. Listen Mark, you don't know the first thing about this. Have you ever been there? Have you ever heard people talk there? Why are you so supportive of the people when you don't seem to have a clue about this matter. All you care is to support the lesser, no matter for what cause and no matter if they're right or wrong. And what you call a "Serbian nationalist" is actually what Djordje and his friends stand for. He's announced numerous times that he's a Serb and he's proud of it, but here he goes creating a language. No hard feelings, but I don't see your motive in here. --Dungodung 15:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're the worst of the lot. My Zlatiborian brothers will surely find their glorious homeland free from the shackles of Serbian oppression when they stage a revolution against your long occupation, and the Zlatiborian language and culture will finally have a chance to be promoted internationally without fear of punishment by cruel Serbian nationalists. You think that you can claim that just because I am not a Serbian, I know nothing about this issue. Well, I have seen images of Zlatibor on television, and I read all about the Serbian occupation. I have a bumper sticker that says "Free Zlatibor Now! Boycott Serbia!", and I own some books on Zlatiborian language. My deepest hope is that after the Serbian tyranny ends, I may travel to Zlatibor and witness the beauty firsthand. That is, unless you and your Serbian nationalist goons destroy it first. --Node ue 19:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm just gonna laugh in hope that you were being sarcastic with this. By the way, Djordje announced that he doesn't want a zb wikipedia and that this was the last of his meta adventures. So, we could all stop with this... ;) --Dungodung 21:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Reason: Really no need. TheFEARgod 12:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - --Pokrajac 12:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose! I have problems with a couple of claims here. Firstly, there is no ISO for this language! Therefore, no matter how many "Zlatiborian linguists" consider this a separate language, it is not accepted worldwide and thus doesn't exist. This is only a mere variant of Serbian language and that's it! I think that failed attempts at creating an article, babel template and a project speak for themselves. Also, I agree with Elephantus: this is probably an elaborate sockpuppet project devised by Đorđe himself. Furthermore, someone said: "About books, Zlatiborians are well-known through the Balkans as very smart and clever nation." I'm having problems comprehending this. A NATION? Gimme a break. Should we create a separate continent for this almighty group of arrogant people that consider themselves to be above everyone else living in the Balkans. Then, there's this: "Zlatiborian is a standardised language, and we write and speak in the way that's been normed by the specialised linguists during the 19th and the 20th centuries." Where is it standardised? Substantiate the claims, and then we'll speak. Đorđe apologised and said that he wouldn't do stuff like this anymore, but here he goes again. Ronline is right - you can't just create 15 wikipedias per country, just because people speak a bit differently. And I'd like to see some evidence that these people are real and that they would get involved in creating the sla-zbr (or whatever) wikipedia. I just hate the branching! Just because Bosnian and Croatian diverged from Serbian, doesn't mean that "Zlatiborian" is. I am against the Serbo-Croatian project because there are many obstacles in the way of reunification and since that is out of the question and since languages in question differ more by the minute, I am totally against making a unified wikipedia that is to unite all south Slavs. That is bullshit and there are 3 wikipedias already (that came from the sh). Now creating Montenegrin and Zlatiborian and Pirotian and Dalmatian and Kosovian and Vojvodian and whatnot would be a waste of time. Since the three languages (sr, bs & hr) went in their own directions, there is no need to crack the Balkans to more pieces. Why can't people just be happy with what they have? They all of a sudden become greedy and start making demands and claims and it all leads to discord. --Dungodung 12:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no ISO code for many languages -- Banyumasan, Samogitian, Võro... but does that mean they're not languages? no. You and your Serbian nationalist friends should go away and let Zlatiborians their own WP in peace!--Node ue 19:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would've voted against them for the lack of ISO, but that's a different issue. --Dungodung 21:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Coat of arms of Zlatibor in deed was created by sample of the coat of arms of Serbia whose part Zlatibor was since 1815. Three mountain peaks on the coat represente three highest peaks of Zlatibor - Tornik (1496 m), Brijac (1480 m), and Cigota (1422 m). I've got no idea of the Slovenian coat of arms, and I don't care for it at all! Slovenes may have any coat of arms they want! Somebody asked where Zlatiborian was standardised. In Uzice and Cajetina. Plus, this is only 2nd time of requesting this wiki, and I was not the one who requested it this time. Mark, thank you for some real sense here. I don't know what does the word sockpupets actually mean, but it seems to me like I've captured Danka, Alexandra, and Nick and made them vote supporting. And finally, about the relation Serbia-Zlatibor: Zlatibor wasn't part of Serbia at all at the first time when Zlatiborians, people of Sorbian origin, came to what is today Zlatibor. Serbian leader Stefan Nemanja conquered Zlatibor c. 1180, and it remained a part of Serbia until Turks conquered Serbia in 1459. During that time, Zlatibor wasn't always a part of Serbia, but it was a part of Bosnia from time to time, too. Since 1459, Zlatibor was free and autonomous. However, Turks came here too, and won Zlatibor in 1463. Zlatibor was a part of Ottoman Empire until 1807. In 1804 Serbs started fighting Turks. In the 19th century, Serb was meaning Othodox at the Balkans, so Montenegrins, Zlatiborians, Macedonians and other Balkan's Orthodox Christians were calling themselves the Serbs, usually in this context: Serbian religion (and the real Serbs were saying Greek religion for Orthodox, and called themselves the Greeks). That's why Zlatiborians helped "their brothers Serbs" in 1804. During those battles, Zlatibor got independence again (in 1807), but Serbia didn't. That's why Serbs made another war with Turks in 1815. In this war, there were no battles at Zlatibor, but Zlatiborians were helping the Serbs in Serbia. Serbia got autonomy, and it conquered Zlatibor again. That was an award for helping! Sad history, isn't it? Sad, but glorious. Jovan Micic, a Zlatiborian whose family is originally from Montenegro, was ruling Zlatibor and he was loyal to Milos Obrenovic, the prince of Serbia. When the House of Karageorgevics won the throne of Serbia, they killed Jovan Micic (he died in Serbian prison in 1844). That was his award for loyality! Zlatibor remained to be a non-autonomous part of Serbia until today, no matter that a Serb doesn't mean an Orthodox any more, and that Serbs weren't good brothers to Zlatiborians. --Ђорђе Д. Божовић 21:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vojvodina became a part of Yugoslavia as late as the 20th century and yet, believe you me, I feel like I'm 100% Serb. Now, Djordje, to end this charade, you can roughly translate what you said in the sr: village pump so we can all forget about this and part happily ever after. :D --Dungodung 21:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose --Dzordzm 04:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Another bizarre Serbo-Croatian incarnation. We don't have a Provence wiki, or a central New Jersey wiki, or a Soho wiki. "Zlatiborian" is a minor variation/dialect of Serbian that most of the purported 20-30.000 "speakers" would simply consider the purest Serbian. It pains me to say this but we Balkan people will obviously be in need of a little bit of outside stewardship for a while. Is there some reasonable Westerner to stop this and similar ridicules? --Dzordzm 04:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose --Gorann Andjelkovic 07:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Raetius 10:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I am completely lost on whether this is a language. I am especially confused with the support from Node ue. Is this some wiki joke or something to actaully be taken seriously. I've also looked at the test wiki, which is already fairly developed. If actual textual evidence from a book can be shown, then I might support. Oh, and could the IP be tracked on the users? Falphin 02:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Porjidlo (1 support, 1 oppose)

Template:New-language-template

Comments
    • I think he may be referring to the Pear language. One of its alternate names is "por". For more clarification, perhaps Porjidlo can take a look at this page and give us the Ethnologue name for the language? --Node ue 05:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, Node ue, I suppose it is very likely, that the information given is really connected with Porjidlo language. But as for me, I shoud tell, that in my opinion the number of speakers in Cambodia could be more than 1200, but they live more compactly. As far as I understand either it is different forms(/dialects) of one language or closely relative (but different) languages or may be just one language - unfortunately I can't say exactly, because I'm not a professional philologist (linguist). But it is likely to be truth. --Porjidlo 17:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might be the same language, but we do still need more information. (The name "Por" might also be related to "Pear", which is a Khmer name for the language that Node is talking about.) Can you tell us what part of Cambodia Porjidlo is spoken in? Do you know the name for Porjidlo in the Khmer language? Can you find it here? Any information you can give us might be useful - even some vocabulary or a few sentences may help. --Chamdarae 20:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm able to create 30-35 articles at the moment. I think it's enough to begin. --Porjidlo
  • Hi, Porjidlo. Could you tell us more about this language? Does it have another name? Is it closely related to another language? (I removed the incorrect code that was in the template.) --Chamdarae 01:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, more information is really needed here. Especially when requesting wikis for little-known languages, it is up the proposer to provide sufficient information about the language to the community or their requests can't be processed. Arbeo 10:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Belgian man 12:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I propose that we ignore all comments Belgian man ever makes on this page. He caused grief in the past by proposing heaps of new languages, has created endless problems on the Nauruan and now the Yorban and others polinesan Wikipedias. He proved has offensive to every body. He does not justifies his opposition with an explicantations like every body else but just votes . He should be baned from these site permnently.
        • I propose that we ignore all dumb unsigned comments. Log in you coward! Furthermore, Nauran is Micronesian, not Polynesian, and Yoruba is not at all Polynesian: it is African, and if you really think it is a Polynesian language you have no business or whatsoever here. Third, Belgian man may have made a mess on na: some time ago, but he really learnt from his wrongs and after all he is striving to get some minor language Wikipedias off the ground. I really would like Belgian to clarify his opposition, but your reaction is dumb beyond description. Caesarion Velim, non opto 11:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wouter, why are you attacking the anon? That's not very Wikilove of you. Yes, perhaps he was a tad rude himself, but really, just attacking him like that is mean (don't bite the newbies). Not only did you call them a "coward", you said they were "dumb", and told them they "have no business ... here". Now, yes, he got some things wrong about languages, but not everybody knows lots of things about languages. In fact, how many people do you think know that Nauruan is actually even spoken anywhere near Polynesia? I'll bet many people would tell you it's African or something. Now, if you're going to be so picky about peoples' knowledge: There is no Nauran language. This "Nauran" language doesn't exist. The anon referred to two languages, Nauruan and Yorban. Not once did they mention "Nauran" or "Yoruba". I don't know about "Yorban", but I know that "Nauruan" is a real language, and "Nauran" is not. So in that way, you were wrong and the anon was right.
          • Now, I have to agree with the anon to a certain extent. Belgian man isn't a horrible person or anything, but I can't find any monumental good contributions of his. He has scared away potential native speakers on the Yorùbá Wikipedia by calling them "vandals" and threatening to ban them for frivelous, good-faith contributions (and he wasn't even a sysop, so he couldn't banned them if he tried!). On the Nauruan Wikipedia, he still supports the inclusion of sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-stubs, despite the objections of some other admins there (myself and JHS, IIRC, feel they should be deleted). Although the condition of the Nauruan Wikipedia is gradually improving, it is still probably the worst of any of the _active_ Wikipedias, followed perhaps by the Maori Wikipedia, both operated by people who admit they only know a little bit of the language but nevertheless rule in an authoritarian manner. --Node ue 05:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Node, why are you revealing my first name? Nick names aren't chosen for nothing. About the anon: he seems to be quite a regular cisitor of this page, knowing about the affairs surrounding B.M., so the be-nice-to-newcomers rule does not apply to him. Most probably it is someone we know and who (intentionally, most probably) did not log in. That is cowardice, I think. Besides, the anon really shows he knows nothing about the languages discussed, and under such conditions he should, imo, stay away from this page. 145.97.196.186 08:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC) O damn, logged out by the system myself... well to be sure, I am Caesarion Velim, non opto 08:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I did not "reveal your first name". You revealed it when you posted to a public mailinglist. The archives are available publicly, so your name, nickname, and e-mail address can all be easily associated. I've had this discussion before, and I still think it's absolutely ridiculous to accuse somebody of "outing" you when the information is a matter of public record. ...now, in reponse to the thing about the anon: Regardless of whether or not he or she is a newcomer, the principles of Wikilove and Assume Good Faith still apply, even if perhaps they are not practiced by that person. On en.wiki, there is a rule called "No Personal Attacks". For calling somebody "dumb" and a "coward", you would've been warned by an admin, and quite possibly somebody would've Removed your Personal Attacks (that's a semipolicy on en.wiki). Now, your use of the word "coward" is obviously an instance of "name calling" rather than an attempt to accurately portray this person -- while they may be a coward in a strict sense, you phrased it as an accusation, rather than as part of a larger context discussing this person's emotional or social background. Similarly, in Japan, the Ainu minority call themselves "ainu", but so many people have used the name in a perjorative manner that it depends on the use. If somebody says "Let's talk about the new law concerning the Ainu and their culture", this will not be offensive. But if somebody (particularly a non-Ainu) says "You're Ainu!!", this is generally considered a racist remark even if it isn't intended as such (perhaps a reaction of surprise from somebody who had assumed they were majority Japanese, or a reaction of an ethnologist who is happy because they were having difficulties finding an Ainu subject to interview). One reason for this is that saying "You're Ainu" (Aìnú dá!) sounds almost exactly the same as saying "Ahh, it's a dog!" (Áq, ínù da!), not just because of that coincidence but because it is used to taunt and harass people in a racist manner -- a racist might say "Áq, ínù da!" to taunt an Ainu person or talk abt them behind their back, or it can be used as a nasty racist way to "warn" people that somebody in the room is Ainu but which can easily be written off as a legitimate nonracist remark -- "well, I thought I saw a dog out the window, but I must've been mistaken..." or "I had the impression of a dog, but it's ambiguous and I may have confused a dog with a person" although the latter is more bizarre, it would certainly save people from getting fired from a job for example. Now, I suppose I've gone on way way way to long about Ainu (a similar thing applies to the indigenous peoples of the Americas -- "Indian" is still a widely preferred name by the indigenes themselves despite its ambiguity, but in many situations its use is considered insulting, racist, or whatever), and obviously "cowards" are not a nationality or culture or ethnic group, but I think the thing regarding a legitimate, fact-based conclusion about somebody vs. a name-calling is based on the wording. --Node ue 01:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • O how nice, likening me to a racist. Node, the person obviously did not log in, probably intentionally. Clearly he is afraid of being recognised. And if you think I am trolling, I will retreat from all Wikimedia projects right now, if you wish. All for your sake, just because I am a racist, do not abide any Wikirules towards people who are equally using ad hominem arguments (or do you really think the anonymous comment should not be considered a personal attack)? Caesarion Velim, non opto 08:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Regardless of whether or not this person is a coward, you said "Log in, you coward!" which is name-calling, period. If you had said "I think you are a coward because...", it would still be rude, but it wouldn't be name-calling. Now, a main part of Wikipedian rules of respect is to be nice to others, even when they're mean. Just because somebody uses bad language, doesn't mean you have to return it at them. It's very un-wikilove. Now, if I knew who that person was, I would condemn them too for the tone they took. But I do not. That is one thing about wikis -- anybody who wants to hide behind anonymity can do so. --Node ue 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • By the way I (conditionally) support this request. Caesarion Velim, non opto 12:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Chamdarae, the word "porjidlo" is pronounced closely to english "p o r dʒ i d l o", so it may somewhere called "pordjidlo". It is the language of porjidlo minority of Cambodia, the population was maybe 12-16 thousands or more before 1975 when Pol Pot regim had killed a lot. Some where lucky to emigrate to Thailand (illigaly) then to India. The most happy were those, who leaved to Singapore then to Japan (my father among them) but there were to little of them. As far as I know, most of porjidlo in Cambodia work as farmers (or are homeless). --Porjidlo 16:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Porjidlo. Thanks for telling us a little about the background of the language. It is important for the community to know some details about a requested language before it can be decided upon. Would you know which group of languages Porjidlo is part of or which other languages might be partly intelligible to its speakers? Or maybe you know a website dedicated to the language? You might also want to start an article about P. in one the existing Wikipedias. Next step would be to team up with a few other interested native speakers before starting the wiki. Especially with respect to the very small number of speakers, it is vital to have a couple of committed editors (two native speakers is the minimum requirement) right from the start because it is not so likely that any Porjidlo speakers will accidentally stumble across the wiki in its early stage. Arbeo 16:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (too few speakers for a Wikipedia) Raetius 10:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blockinblox 03:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Oppose, I am not so sure this is any real language now; I am trying to find out if it means something, for example so far I have just found out that the word 'jidlo' happens to be Czech for "food"... Blockinblox 21:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bishnupriya Manipuri (3 support)

Template:New-language-template

Comments

Close proximity with the Sauraseni-Maharastri Prakrit, highly influenced by Sanskrit. Some charateristics of Hindi, some denoting terms of Meitei and a little influence of Bengali and Assamese incorporated; after all Bishnupriya Manipuri is a different language, so Bishnupriya Manipuri Language demands to have a new wikipedia home page. I have so many pages to submit. There are so many Bishnupriya Manipuri people to visit this project.

--Thanks for your support, I fixed it.-Usingha--

Maliseet-Passamaquoddy (4 support, 1 oppose)

Template:New-language-template I am part Maliseet and I am working on learning the language. I hope a few other students of the language or Passamaquoddy or Maliseet native speakers will also be interested in contributing.

This language has been spoken in Maine and New Brunswick since long before European contact. It includes two very closely related dialects easily understood by speakers of the other, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy, roughly centered on what are now the St. John and St. Croix Rivers, respectively. It contributed a word to English: Moose!

Many of the original Algonquian languages, which once had millions of speakers dominating vast stretches of what are now eastern and central USA and Canada, are extinct. Maliseet-Passamaquoddy is seriously endangered, with only 1,600 or so native speakers, but it looks like its speakers are keeping it stable. It's a beautiful and fascinating language from an incredibly beautiful part of the Earth. ~ Reaverdrop 12:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A sample Maliseet translation:

Kci-wikhikon

Main Page

Wikipedia-uk, 'kocoskehlawal encyclopedia.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Uskawemal Wikipedia, 'kocoskehlawal encyclopedia wen kis-mawwikhikhotuwok.

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Wot Wolastoqewiyik elikok mace eli 2005.

This Maliseet version started in 2005.

  • Support. There are two other Algonquian wikipedias (in Cree and Cheyenne), both sadly lacking content, as are (unfortunately) most wikipedias in native American languages. To avoid the risk of a similar fate for a Maliseet-Passamaquoddy wikipedia, I would recommend finding some more people who can contribute and starting a test-wiki. If together you can write a few dozen articles, that will give you a much better start than other native American wikipedias have had. --Chamdarae 14:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. But Reaverdrop, please promise to me with your hand on the Bible that you will keep contributing as much as you can and that you will strive to find some native speakers or language revivers. That is absolutely necessary when you start a new Wikipedia. Caesarion Velim, non opto 23:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not because I oppose a Maliseet and/or Passamaquoddy Wikipedia, but rather because Reaverdrop says "I am part Maliseet and I am working on learning the language". This is something you typically hear from people who are 1/2403248909234th American indigene, and think that learning the language is all new-agey and cool and thus learn it as a hobby rather than as a serious or a real pursuit. Choctaw, Creek, and Cheyenne Wikipedias were proposed by exactly the same kinds of people, and they are really small and never grew beyond two or three substub articles. --Node ue 05:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. On top of that, one should not overlook that building an encyclopedia is a huge project, especially if you have to rely on unpaid, voluntary, non-professional writers. It takes a number of dedicated people coming from various fields of knowledge, willing to sacrifice much of their free time order to make the project a success. With the very low number of speakers (with many of them possibly being more "at home" in English), how could that be attained? Arbeo 11:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaverdrop Responds: Thanks, Chamdarae and Caesarion. To address the concerns raised by Caesarion and the opposers:
    • I've identified a few experts I'll try to rely on: Philip LeSourd, Ph.D. MIT, lingustics and anthropology professor at Indiana University, author of a Maliseet-Passamaquoddy dictionary; Robert Leavitt, linguistics professor at the University of New Brunswick, director of the Mi'kmaq-Maliseet Institute, and co-author of an ongoing Maliseet-Passamaquoddy dictionary; David Francis, a Passamaquoddy elder at Sipayik, Maine, and co-author with Leavitt of the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy dictionary; and Laura Redish, director of a Native American language activism non-profit in my local area. I will rely on them for help, and if possible convince them to participate directly.
    • My part-Maliseet grandmother makes regular visits to her hometown in Aroostook County, northern Maine, around the upper St. John River in the Maliseet heartland. She has a standing invitation for me to accompany her. I've visited there twice before. I will have the opportunity to visit again and seek to practice/check up on my Maliseet with native speakers (my relatives among them), and hopefully even get some of them interested in the Wikipedia project.
    • As for being trivialized as "new-agey and cool", there's nothing "new-agey" about studying a once much more widely spoken language of some of my ancestors. I have an established record of making serious studies of foreign languages rather than merely dabbling as a hobby: I've taken classes in Latin, Spanish, French, and Dutch, I got an A on a university fluency test for Dutch, I lived in Europe for a year and was told by native Dutch speakers that I had an Amsterdam accent and they did not believe I was American. I suspect that is more of a proven record of serious language study than the authors of the Choctaw, Creek, and Cheyenne Wikipedias could claim.
      • There are quite a few people who fit the exact same profile. Now, I would support this WP if a _real_ speaker requested it. But it wasn't a _real_ speaker. It was somebody who is learning a minority language. And, in the case of Native American languages, most second-language learners learn it as a hobby, but make similar claims to you (...ancestors). Now, if you get the same level of fluency in Maliseet that you have in Dutch, you could easily be considered a _real_ speaker. But currently, I really don't think you are. And, as always, Native Speakers über alle! Obviously, a very fluent speaker can start a WP, but Native Speakers are always the best. Now, don't get the idea that I have any problem with people learning the indigenous languages of the Americas, or with the languages themselves. I myself have taken college classes in O'Odham and Navajo. And despite the relative fluency I had at one time in Navajo, I would never have requested that WP. The only reason I took to it is because it already existed, and it's still pretty much cryogenically preserved until a native speaker comes along, with some minor enhancements such as a partially translated interface, and a handful of articles. In fact, it would be very refreshing to have a successful Maliseet and/or Passamaquoddy WP. I just don't see you as the bastion for accomplishing that goal. --Node ue 05:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for Arbeo's concern: if a low number of speakers, with some of them also fluent in a lingua franca, were a serious argument against establishing a Wikipedia in that language, we should call quits on the creation of Wikipedias in new languages, and dismantle many of the extant ones. (The Latin and Old English Wikipedias seem to be doing fine with no native speakers...) There are few if any options left if we only admit languages with current large speaking populations without knowledge of a more widespread language. On the contrary, that is an argument in favor rather than against setting up a Wikipedia in that language. The Maliseet Wikipedia will encourage and assist non-speakers or non-fluent speakers of Maliseet to learn the language, and hopefully will be available to encourage and assist native speakers to be actively engaged in their language, and let them not have to leave Maliseet behind completely when they are on the Internet. As for the time commitment, sure it is sure to be slower going with a language with few speakers, but a relatively slowly built Wikipedia is still going to do a lot more to further engagement with the language than preemptive surrender. And looking at my record of Wikipedia contributions, you can rest assured that a significant time expenditure (for at least one contributor) will not be an issue.
~ Reaverdrop 08:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice to see that you are quite serious about this, Reaverdrop! I'd morally support this if you can assure that there will be at least two participants right from the start who know the language really well. Arbeo 16:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silesian (3 support)

Template:New-language-template

Comments
  • This proposal was mistakenly placed on the subpage for non-natural languages by an anonymous user. I have moved it to allow it full consideration. Tuf-Kat 04:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the creation of this wiki.
  • It is said here, that the most related languages for Silesian (in Polish it si called Śląski język - am I right?) are Polish, Czech and German. But, as far as I understand, both Czach and Polish (and Silesian?) are slavic while German belongs to german group of languages. Please tell us how could it be? Is Silesian a mixed language? Porjidlo 18:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The designation Silesian can refer to two varieties, one Germanic and one Slavonic. It might be a mistake. I can't make out which Silesian is intended, and I will not give any support as long as the proposer does not clarify that. Caesarion Velim, non opto 20:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Caesarion, the more specific details given about it clarify that it's referring to the Slavic one: 1) Proposer is Polish; 2) Language code used is sli, which refers to the Slavic one; 3) Link to English article is to one about Slavic one; 4) "South Poland, Voivodship Silesian" indicates Slavic again. --Node ue 22:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The code "sli" is used for Lower Silesian (Germanic), which is also spoken in southern Poland, near to where Upper Silesian (Slavic) is spoken. It looks like this proposal is for Upper Silesian, but the proposer should make that a bit clearer. Also, since there's no official code for Upper Silesian, they'll need to propose one (maybe sla-sil). --Chamdarae 11:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, most evidence speaks for the Slavic idiom indeed. If that is correct, German should not be quoted as a "related language", because it only provides some loanwords etc. to the Slavic Silesian but is no close relative. Apart from that, I have yet to make up my mind about this request (same old question: language or dialect?) Arbeo 16:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Buzkid 00:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Yes, because it is a mother language of many otherwise bilingual peoples. European minor language are very important in culture of own and their history also.[reply]

Support it seems its kind of middle to Czechian and Polish . -Todmir

Jèrriais (or Norman) (7½ support)

Template:New-language-template

Comments

Norman as a language is native to Normandy and the Channel Islands. Jersey Norman, or Jèrriais, is the most-spoken, highest-profile, and most literarily accomplished of the Insular Norman dialects. Much more information appears to be available in and about it on the web (in part thanks to Les Pages Jèrriaises and the Section de la Langue Jèrriaise de la Société Jersiaise) than Continental Norman, as well. I am unaware of the speakership of Continental Norman (last I checked, a survey had not been done), but Jèrriais has thousands of speakers, and is generally considered the dominant dialect of Norman.

Jèrriais has a comprehensive Jèrriais-French dictionary, and an English-Jèrriais dictionary is in the works. Software, books, and cassettes are available to teach and learn the language, and it is being taught in Schools in Jersey. (I know that Continental Norman is being taught in some universities in Normandy, but I am unaware of other educational activitity among the dialects). Jèrriais has an ongoing radio program(me), and several books have been published in and on the language, including Jèrri Jadis and Histouaithes and Gens d'Jèrri.

Linguistically, Norman is one of the langues d'oïl, closely related to French, but with its own history reaching back hundreds of years (notably marked by the writings of Wace in the twelfth century, who may be considered the earliest Norman—indeed, Jèrriais, for he was from Jersey—writer), as well as its own idioms, grammar, and vocabulary. Major dialectal groups of Norman include Old Norman, the Insular dialects (two to four major living dialects, depending where one draws the line, and one dead), Continental Norman, and Anglo-Norman (the ruling language of England for a few centuries).

Unfortunately, as Jersey Norman has not yet been adopted as an official language (previously, this was felt unnecessary—the two political languages, English and Jersey French, have been Jersey's official languages), but work is being done on a GCSE program in Jèrriais, and extensive efforts are being made to revive the language. However, it is because of Jèrriais' lack of official status that it, currently, has no language code.

Needless to say, I support the creation of a Jèrriais wikipedia.--Jade Knight 23:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Many of these arguments seem to be based on the question of linguistic status—whether the language in question is "really" a different language or if it's a dialect of another language. Even as a linguist, I will say that this distinction is one that is often up to people who speak the languages/dialects in question, and is based on not just linguistic factors, but on many social, political, and other other such non-linguistic factors. That said, Jèrriais is not just a separate language as far as speakers call it, but is linguistically quite distinct from Parisian French and other dialects of French "proper". On top of that, there are enough speakers (and the potential for more) to warrant its own wikipedia. —Firespeaker 02:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Would it be reasonable to have a single Wikipedia for Jèrriais as well as Continental Norman, Dgèrnésiais and/or Sercquiais? Some wikis do that kind of thing already for very closely related languages. Tuf-Kat 05:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly, I think there should be a single Wiki for for Insular Norman, where I expect Jèrriais would be the primary standard, but Dgèrnésiais could provide a secondary standard. Were there any Sercquiais interested, it could, in theory, provide a tertiary standard, if need be. Jade Knight 22:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no doubt that Jèrrais is distinct enough from French to be considered a separate language. Apart from that, with respect to the very small number of speakers (and thus potential editors) I would very much welcome it if we could have a single Wikipedia that least covers all Channel Islands varieties of Norman (plus the continental ones, if possible). Arbeo 15:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's been some discussion among Norman speakers on French Wikipedia about the possibility of a Norman Wikipedia. I'd suggest that perhaps we seek a consensus on whether to start a pan-Norman version before proceeding to a Jèrriais ouitchi. Man vyi
    • Agreed. I had not seen this discussion, and I know very little about the current status of continental Norman (despite my best efforts), so I went forward with a Jèrriais proposal. Certain, we should talk to Les Nouormaunds d'France and decide if it would be better to have a "Norman" Wikipedia. In theory, I think it would be a great idea, though (it seems to me) that Jèrriais is different enough from Norman to cause some difficulty adopting any sort of acceptable standard. There seems to generally be a standard form of Jèrriais these days. Does such a standard exist for continental Norman? Jade Knight 22:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a Wikipedia in Jerriais, but support one in Norman, where you can write Jerriais as well, of course. I would also applaud Picard, Gallo and Champenois Wikipedias! Caesarion [[User_talk:Caesarion|<small>Velim, non opto</small>]] 19:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jersey language is difference to Norman in France, and Gurnesey language too. So I suppoprt it - Todmir
    • Of course these dialects are all different, but they are similar. That's why we have to fit them into one Wikipedia. The usage of both Jerriais en Dgernésiais is very low, even among the older generation, and continental Norman is in rapid decline. Especially when it comes to endangered languages like these, you must not open a Wikipedia for any variant. We'd better fit them all in one Wikipedia. There are 550 Limburgic dialects, and should the li: Wikipedia be broken up in so many new Wikipedias? When it is possible, combine your efforts and make bigger Wikipedias. In the end, that will benefit those endangered languages more than this kind of Balkanisation. Caesarion 10:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Caesarion, you talk a lot about difference between dialects and languages. Jerriais and Dgernesiais are quite different in the first place. Besides that, Jerriais and Continental Norman in a single Wikipedia probably won't work. If Zeelandic should get a separate WP, which I think it should, then certainly Jerriais deserves its own as well. --Node ue 03:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Node, there are two important differences. First: At the Dutch Wikipedia, you are not allowed to write in Zeelandic. At the Norman Wikipedia, you would be allowed to write in insular Norman. Second: the number of speakers is much lower for Jèrriais and Dgernésiais than for Zeelandic. Anyway, we might try the pan-Norman wiki first and consider splitting of Jèrriais and Guèrnésiais ones later. Of course I think three seperate Wikipedias is a better solution than no Norman Wikipedia at all. Caesarion 11:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is assuming that the Normans find Jèrriais an acceptable dialect. The impression I get is that, while they find it somewhat bizarre (the orthography is different, and the "th" must seem very unnatural to speakers of other dialects), they seem to not be particularly offended at the dialect that is being used. However, my experience is very, very limited (Man vyi's opinions here would be most helpful), and certainly I think we should try to find more immersed speakers to give us their opinions before deciding what would work better for the Norman population at large. Jade Knight 02:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I agree, in principle, the difficulty will be that Insular and Continental dialects, though similar, are still substantially different—enough to make mutual comprehension slow, even in the written form, if one is not very familiar with the other variety. Even some basic vocabulary like "to speak" ("pâler" in Jèrriais and "prêchi" in cont. Norman) are different. I am not opposed to a combined Wiki in theory, though I worry how any sort of standard would be upheld if it included all dialects, or if the fact that the two different major dialectal groups might make it difficult for users to use. One solution I can see is having two versions of every entry—one in Jèrriais, and one in Normaund. This could be done by having the primary entry being, perhaps, "Winston Churchill", and the second entry being "Winston Churchill (Jer) or (Nor)" (and being linked to from the other article)—essentially combining two separate wikis in one. Translation between the two dialects should be very, very easy for native speakers (meaning that conversion of articles would go very quickly), and it would allow most users to view the articles in the form they understand best. I am not convinced that a Norman Wikipedia would succeed without some sort of provision like this, however. Man vyi might know better than I, however, and I will, of course, defer to the consensus reached by native speakers. Jade Knight 14:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, whether it includes continental Norman or not. If a unified wikipedia could be readily understood by all speakers it would probably be the better option. --Chamdarae 18:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a Norman Wikipedia project on which each article should have an indication as to which dialect it is written in, using a namespace if possible (Jèrriais:Winston Churchill). I believe, however, that the Jèrriais language code should be je, in accordance with the Island's TLD and the established use of two letters for language codes. Grumpy Troll Talk
    • Two letter domain codes (such as .je) are national, not linguistic. Both two and three letter codes are used for languages. I support a 3-letter language code for Jèrriais (as there is no way we'll ever convince them to allow an ISO 639-1 [i.e. 2-letter] code for Jèrriais), but am fine either way. While the articles could be named "Jèrriais:Winston Churchill", we would need a "default" article, and I feel it would be easier for one of the languages to be pulled up as a default, and have that article link to the other dialects. Either the default could be Jèrriais or continental Norman, or the default could be whichever dialect the article is first written in, or whichever dialect has the most complete entry. I am of the personal opinion that multiple dialects would need to be supported, however, in a pan-Norman wikipedia. Jade Knight 02:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andalùh (16 support [thereof 3 unregistered users, but with different ip's]; 17 oppose)

Template:New-language-template

Comments
Support:'
  1. Support(N)--Rautjes 23:05, 13 Nov. 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support (N)--Aranrui 23:05, 13 Nov. 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support--Node ue 23:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support (N)--ILVI 01:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC) (nacido en Sevilla) Let's hear it for minority languages!!! (in this case not such a small minority, however ;-)[reply]
  5. Support(N)--Chitita It isn't absourd to create a wikipedia in andalusian, it is another language for a lot of andalusians, who would participate more in the wiki project if they had a Wikipedia in Andalusian. There are a lot of Spaniards that hate to hear about the andalusian language, because they don't want andalusians to have the right to do what they want with their language, but this site isn't Spain or its governments, it is a free site in the internet with the purpose to create a free Encyclopedia in all the possible languages. ANDALUSIAN IS ONE OF THOSE LANGUAGES. 15:31, 15 Nov. 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support(N)--Juaniyo3 I can't understand why those spaniards don't want that we have a wiki in our language. There is a lot of wikis in languages that are not natural. Those non-natural languages are able to have a wiki. There are also a lot of dialects that have an own Wikipedia. Andalusian is a natural language, spoken by aprrox. 8.000.000 persons. We should also have the possibility to write in our mother-language, it is not possible at school in Andalusian, it is prohibited, so that our language is going to dissappear in the future, because it wont be learned at school. An Encyclopedia in Andalusian would give Andalusian a very important opportunity not to disappear. I'm sure Wikipedia is going to do that, and I am also sure that not just to Andalusian. 15:53, 15 Nov. 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support(N)--Oplicoisn't a username, anonymous It isn't fair what some people that oppose to an Andalusian Wikipedia say. Andalusia has allways been different of the rest of Spain. It has allways had a proper culture, history and language. It is time to start a serius project in Andalusian, the idea of a Wikipedia is very good to start something serious in Andalusian. I know there are a lot of crazy people, but those people are not interested in a Wikipedia, just we that are serious, are interested in it. Spanish people dont have to be afraid because of Andalusian. A Wikipedia in Andalusian is going to make the culture of Andalusia, Spain and the world richer. 15:53, 15 Nov. 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support (N)-- Theurge 17:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) If there are wikipedia's in many dialects I believe that it isn't a nonsense that "Andalú" have got one of this.anonymous
  9. Support (N)-- Francisco Morales 22:13, 15 November 2005 "Andalú" is too diferent from spanish to be a dialect. Moreover some people from other non-andalusian cities can't understand "andalú" due to the diferences between castilian and andalusian dialects.anonymous
  10. Support--Buzkid 00:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Yes, because it is different sounding language. It is known from Flamenco Andalusian singers in all the world. It is very different from Castillian which is sounding strange even for South American speakers of Spanish. In some italian dialect areas it is easier to understand Andalusian person than Castillian speaking person.[reply]
  11. Support--Sabine 09:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC) I know from experience that Andalusian is not Spanish, but another language - it is not just a dialect since it is too different. Andalusian literature exists - for some more notes see my mail to the wikipedia-l. Well I am not a native speaker, nor do I really speak it - I just noted that I could understand it thanks to my speaking not only Spanish as foreign language. Building up the Neapolitan Wikipedia I know what it means to deal with non standardised spelling and I can help with uploading for example the calendar (a thing I can do for every wikipedia if you provide me with the necessary "basic information" - the tables for it are already created.[reply]
  12. Support-- Marley 13:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC) -- I support the Andalusian Wikipedia. Although I'm not a native, I understand it just as well as Standard Spanish, and can tell there's a marked difference between them. I also love Flamenco arts (music, singing, etc.).[reply]
  13. Support (N)-- Loqu 15:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC) I'm a native speaker of Andalusian, and I want my language to be respected and promoted. Since the official authorities don't seem to care, Wikipedia would be a good place to start from.[reply]
  14. Support (N)-- Caetano 19:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Andalusian Spanish predates the Reconquest by Castilian armies. For me Standard Spanish spelling with marked sound differences like aspiration of final "s" would be ideal. A total re-spelling of the language, although phonetically more accurate would be a thing for the future. Andalusian is spoken now as Asturian and Aragones are in their respective provinces. Andalusian deserves its voice in Wikipedia.[reply]
  15. Support -- GerardM 08:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC) I have learned enough about languages to know how true it is 'a language is a dialect with an army' given the UN support for minor languages and given the way people expect/dismiss suckpuppets I want to balance this a bit. In Ultimate Wiktionary we will gladly include dialects. GerardM 08:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Caesarion 10:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC) We have a Ladino Wikipedia, and Ladino is obviously much closer to Spanish than Andalucian is. We have a Neapolitan Wikipedia, and Neapolitan is at least as close to Italian as Andalucian is to Spanish. From this point of view, we can't deny this variant its own Wikipedia.[reply]


Oppose:
  1. Oppose-(the test pages doesn't prove it is a different language, see Talk:Test-wp/and/)--Srtxg 10:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose--Javier Carro 13:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC) Andaluz is a dialect of Spanish without an standard writing. Andaluz speakers are merely Spanish speakers with phonetic variations. It seems to me that a certain group of people are trying to create lots of Wikipedias based on Spanish dialects. The next one: my mom's village linguistic variation.[reply]
    • So are we to understand that the Catalan and Aragonese Wikipedias are rubbish as well, Javier? Caesarion Velim, non opto 14:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn´t call it rubbish, but dialect. And I didn´t talk about Catalan neither Aragonese Wikipedias. Catalan is a language derived from Latin, not from Spanish. Catalan has literature. Andaluz doesn´t. Andaluz is Spanish, but Spanish spoken with certain variations. If we create an Andaluz Wikipedia, we should also accept a Wikipedia in any of the dialects appearing in w:en:List_of_dialects_of_English. --Javier Carro 16:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No Javier, only to those that are can be considered seperate languages when one considers the differences between the variety discussed and the language it is supposed to be a dialect of. It is true that the main linguistic division of the Iberian paeninsula is east-west oriented rather than north south, as a result of the rather straight Reconquista. To say that there are barely any differences between the speech of Old Castilia and Andalucia goes too far. So everyone should just take a look at some Andalucian texts, and read the article on this variant in Wikipedia. Then you can make out whether it is separate enough to be called a language. The time that gouvernments could tell us what was a language and what wasn't is over now. Caesarion [[User_talk:Caesarion|<small>Velim, non opto</small>]] 17:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with you on your claim of separating politics and linguistics. But I think you don't see that the political claim comes from the sockpuppeter. So, you are right, have a look to the English Wikipedia article about andaluz and you'll see its differences with the standard castillian pronunciation. Because the difference is mainly pronounced. So, many people claim, even, that Andalucian is not a dialect, but just a peculiar pronunciation of Spanish with certain particular words. So, the fact of calling it dialect is to be quite generous with those longing to create a new language where it is not. And it's funny, because certain variations spread to Spanish spoken in Madrid like the "s" aspiration at the plural suffixes. Some linguists consider Andaluz as a developed form of Spanish. You ask for Andalucian texts, but, which ones? I told you that there is not Andalucian literature splitted from Spanish. Of course we could make a phonetic transcription like this sockpuppeter does, but we would be part of an experiment creating a writing system which does not exist. I strongly believe that most, most andalucians who would read this voting would be laughing at the proposal. --Javier Carro 06:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Some are of the opinion that the aspiration of final "s" in Madrid is a result of the immigrant working class reinforcing its accent on the whole community over quite some time. For example: American inner cities have developed separate English accents which reflect similar pronunciation habits. This is a cultural point which would reinforce that Andalusian is different from Standard Castilian Spanish. Caetano 19:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose La ortografía propuesta es una invención artificiosa sin base alguna. Nadie ha escrito así nunca este dialecto, salvo una docena de iluminados mal avenidos. --Sanbec 15:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Lourdes Cardenal 17:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. OPOSSE Felipealvarez 19:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC) El Andaluz is a variety of dialects from castillian. NOT A LANGUAGE![reply]
  6. Oppose. Because there is already a Wikipedia in Andalusian: http://es.wikipedia.org This is not a request for a new language, but a request for an innovative orthography for the Spanish language. Wikipedia dixit: w:en:Andalusian dialect. ManuelGR 21:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the article in the es.wiki Andalusian is NOT a dialect of Castellano
    "El origen de la modalidad lingüística andaluza debemos buscarlo en la época andalusí, en la cual el latín vulgar hablado en Al-Andalus evolucionó hasta la lengua de alyamía, la hablada por los habitantes de Al-Andalus no relacionados con las élites dominantes (las cuales hablaban árabe o bereber). En la lengua de alyamía podemos ya encontrar bastantes de los rasgos hoy característicos de los andaluces. La posterior conquista castellana ocasionó que ambas hablas (la castellana y la andaluza) no divergieran sino que se encontraran, por lo cual hoy en día no suelen ser consideradas lenguas distintas. Al no provenir en su totalidad del castellano, algunos lingüistas opinan que no debe ser considerado diacrónicamente un dialecto de él; por eso el término que se considera más correcto para definir al andaluz (y el oficial según la Consejería de Educación y Ciencia de la Junta de Andalucía) es el de «modalidad lingüística andaluza», aunque no estén de acuerdo todos los eruditos en el tema."
    So I am also of the opion that due to politics Andalusian hasn't gotten the respect it deserves due to it's own roots in the Vulgar Latin spoken in the Betica Region of Spain and it's development through the years of Moorish occupation. Marley 19:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Las características principales del andaluz son una pronunciación bastante diferente de la castellana y un repertorio de palabras autóctonas, que sumadas a las castellanas determinan una relativa riqueza léxica. Existen asimismo algunas variaciones sintácticas y morfológicas.
  7. Oppose: In the articles, is refered as dialect and don't have a gramatical standard. --Taichi - (^_^) 23:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some support votes are realized by an annonymus IP's in the range 80.133.2XX.XXX; this votes must be invalid.--Taichi - (^_^) 02:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reminds me of what happened with Murcian above. This is even more of a hoax, in my opinion. -- AngelRiesgo 08:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't the same. Murcian has their own verbs, different than castilian verbs. Murcian has catalan influences... Andaluz isn't a language, is castilian with another form of writing and speech, but no more. Si no conoces el murciano y el andaluz, lo mejor que podrías hacer es no ponerte en evidencia. Lo que estas insinuando es una aberración propia de alguien que quiere meter sus narices en un tema que desconoce por completo.
  8. Oppose This is absurd. What next? Different wikipedias for those who speak rhotic and non-rhotic varieties of English? How about splitting the German Wikipedia between those who say Saturday as Samstag and those who say Sonnabend? And I gather those French speakers in Switzerland and Belgium who can't cope with funny numbers like quatre-vingts deserve their own wikipedias too. The lexical differences between Andalusian dialects and mainstream Castilian Spanish are minimal. It is mainly a different accent, in many respects closer to Latin American Spanish than to other peninsular varieties. Anyway, I wonder if the people who support this are serious at all. Apart from the bogus user names, some of the comments are little more than jokes, like the one saying "I am Spanish and I don't understand Andalusian". This is sometimes said in a jocular way in Spain, a bit like when an English person says "I'm very bad at languages. I can't even understand Geordie!". --AngelRiesgo 08:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, okay. Blockinblox 17:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose: it 'a fictional language. Only a group of nonhomogenous dialects. Rata de Biblioteca 10:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hemogenia" dialects? Learn English before you state your opinion! If you mean homogeneous, I can do nothing but contradict you: of course not all of the dialects are the same, but they do share a lot of common features. And it is certainly not a fictional language. Do you know what a fictional language is? Obviously not: a fictional language is a language that was conceived by one person or a few people for fun, or for use in fiction. Do you really wish to liken Andalucian to Klingon, Quenya and Sindarin??? Caesarion 12:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    He's speaking Spanglish, a real language. What about a Wikipedia of this spoken language? Let's take Wikipedia more seriously. By the way, do you have to know English to state your opinion in Meta, what happened to the plurilingual philosophy of Meta? Andalusian is a real variety of Spanish but fictional as a language. Don't be fooled by two or three extremists. ManuelGR 20:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Let Rata write in Spanish if he is incapable of writing English, I for one will tolerate that, though I'll have to reply in English. What I will not tolerate, however, is that you label those who consider Andalucian a separate language as "extremists". These are ordinary people with their own views which may not concord with yours, but whom you cannot simply dismiss as "extremists"! Caesarion 16:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? They are ordinary people with their own extremist view. That's my humble opinion. Tolerate it or not, I don't matter. ManuelGR 13:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. OPPOSEAnna 21:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC) I agree with Javier Carro's opinion.[reply]
  12. Oppose Arbeo 14:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Having a basic knowledge of Spanish, I can read the Andalusian test WP without difficulty. There is absolutely no convincing evidence that this is a distinct language. Arbeo 14:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Joanot 10:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC) Andalusian have not enough entity in order to be able considered as dialect. Is the same case of Valencian with Catalan, but diferent about Murcian with Spanish. The only one difference with the Spanish WP would be a different writting norms.[reply]
  14. Oppose for many many reasons. Among those: not being recognized as a separate language by nobody, lacking a standarized form, being a politically motivated request. Ejrrjs 23:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is funny, only because a language is not yet recognised as a separate language it is not there ... well if you asked this question some time ago for Neapolitan or Sicilian or Venetian or whatever Italian minor language "none of those" would have been there. Going back in history you will find that the Neapolitan language was very much influenced by the Andalusian language, this during the invasions of the Arabs in that region and in the Reign of the two Sicilies ... really I do not know the complete history - what I know is only about languages.
    It is obvious why governments don't want "local languages" to live ... they fear that a separation would be the next step not knowing that if they let the identity of such small regions live these small regions will assure that there is going to be unity. Not allowing for diversity creates the "need of separation" allowing for diversity creates the "need of unity" and really I am wondering why politicians do not understand that simple rule.
    In Andalusia you have people tell the kids to "speak well" meaning to speak Spanish (well what is called Spanish) and not their local language - we still have the exactly same behaviour here in Campania. People are still taught that their local language is only a low level thingie, for non instructed people ... well make the language of a people die and you make the people die. A people without language is not a people anymore - a people without past has no future - and such a people has NO identity - and this is the most pericolous thing of all. People having no identity will not care about certain things.
    In this sense I wish you all a wonderful Sunday. --Sabine 07:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose rsg (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC) I agree with Javier Carro's opinion.[reply]
  16. Oppose Edub 12:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Mild Oppose Chlewey 16:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC). I am pretty much sure that any Andalusian that is literally enough to use a Wikipedia, would rather use a more complete encyclopedia in the language they know how to read and write: standard Spanish/Castilian than learning a new orthography. A Wikipedia in Andalusian would rather handicap than empower Andalusians.[reply]
  • Everything can be discussed here but cheating will not be tolerated. I simply don't believe that three Germans get up in the middle of the night just to register themselves at Meta (all with their complete first and last names, very unusual) and express their support for an Andalusian WP within an eight minute span of time. Please correct the dishonest parts and then we resume the discussion! Arbeo 16:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • NB: One more thing is really suspicious. The votes of the supporters "Sandra Röminger" through "Oplico" all show the same very uncommon structure used by nobody else (first "support", then the user name, after that a comment and lastly the date). The preceding four all knew how to insert the current date without making their IPs show up, which is not less unusual. I really feel like deleting them all. Arbeo 16:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Wikimedia promote experiments for language creation? If the Wikipedia in Andalusian is created I foresee this is going to happen:
  1. A small minority will gather to edit the new wiki.
  2. They will start to fight for the spelling, because there is not a writting standard. See the test-wp history: [4].
  3. Someone will write a bot that translates from the Spanish Wikipedia to the Andalusina one, changing the spelling so it looks more andalusian in his own view. The grammar don't matter, it's just the same. Wikimedia resources will be consequently spoiled.
  4. People will start to get bored of their old toy and will abandone the project. There will never be a consensus about the spelling.
  5. Andalusian Wikipedia will be a dead project and a spam paradise.

It is my opinion that Andalusian is not a different language from Spanish, but it is a fact, and not a opinion, that there is no spelling norm for this theorical language. Wikipedia is not the site for creating a language norm and making experiments. ManuelGR 13:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikimedia does not promote experiments for language creation. Let's see to get your points right:
  1. At the beginning it will be a small minority and this small minority has the right to do just like others.
  2. Fight for spelling: well this depends very much on who is leading the project - within wikipedia we have good and bad experiences of that - the good ones survive - the bad one dies. Talking about spelling standards is always a difficult thingie, in particular for languages that have not been written for centuries or only in songs and poems. We have these situations in different wikipedias: one is Neapolitan where I am admin - there is a very simple thing you can do: be tolerant ... and I suppose that if you talk with people those not being tolerant will go away - the tolerant ones will remain and the project will maybe grow a bit slower, but with more success.
  3. A bot? You are joking, aren't you? Some kind of Babelfish for Andalusian? Well if you think in such a negative way ... sorry I cannot help you. The grammar does matter since even that is different - slightly different, but there are differences. Of course there are such things as CAT-Tools like OmegaT that can help you doing translations by giving you glossary items or 100% match sentences if some sentences were already translated before, but an automatic thingie is much too far away to be used for such stuff. CAT-Tools, if used properly, can make you really fast ... well you will see this on the Neapolitan wikipedia. I will use all instruments a translator has at disposal to get certain "regular" stuff done ... and of course I use bots to upload pages I prepared offline, add interwiki-links, create the calendar or whatever. But these are used on many Wikipedias and they only help you to work more efficiently avoiding to waste time.
  4. People will not get bored - it all depends on the right admins. As I already said in several e-mails: being an admin of a Wikipedia in a minor language you do not have an easy life. It is much more about keeping people motivated, about not stopping even if you are the only person in the world editing, about printing pages and give them to people who have no internet access, about creating projects and stuff people can work on, about reaching out to discussion lists and forums about that language, about printing relevant articles and putting them on a blackboard of the town hall, schools, churches, universities. And I bet with you: people who want to maintain their language will do all that. Often people don't know what they can do - but once they know ... you would be surprised how much even only one single motivated person can do.
  5. If a project is dead this just means that it is waiting for someone to come and clean up ... well these people sooner or later come up. Spam: it is not so much work to go after a small wikipedia - anyone having admin rights and understanding the language can go there once a week and at least clean up. Wikipedia is about co-operation and making an encyclopaedia available to each person in the world in their own language, about being positive in thought, fact and deed and not about seeing only difficulties before a project starts.
We have only one life to live.... one life to give .... when it is over it is over. These might be strange words from a person like me: well I had my experiences. And these experiences lead me to do exactly what I feel I need to do. Tomorrow can be too late.
Time ago I saw a video about an account - a time account - and this account is filled up every day with 24 hours having 60 minutes each. Once the day is over the minutes and hours that were not used in a positive way are just gone - you cannot get them back. You just have the possibility to decide to use each one of these new 24 hours with 60 minutes each as positivly as possible. Well: do it. I am sure you can. I am sure you have thousands of things that should get done: don't wait and just start doing.
As I told you: this is a wikipedia where I can say it has a right to live, it has a right for a chance. I cannot say this for all minor language wikipedias since I do not know enough about all those languages. But if there are things where I can help and I have the time to do so: well I will do it. My actual to do list is long ... but it is so long because I want to get things done. Some will never be done, but at least I try.
Think about your time account and how to use it - then think about the right to live and have an identity you want yourself - and then think about what you can do to help others to get this - and then consider if you would like to be prevented in doing things you stand for - and then think if you really want to prevent these motivated people from trying to go their way.
Hmmmm .... there's not much to add ... I suppose this is already too much for some of you...
Thank you for having taken the time to read this.
--Sabine 18:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are fair, but they fail in the main premise. You are talking about Wikipedias in minority languages and about their struggle for survival. I support all your arguments. On the other hand, Andalusian Spanish is not a minority language but a majority dialect or language modality (whatever term is prefered). The great majority of people in Andalusia will feel offended if we say them they don't talk Spanish but a different language, and that they should read that new bizarrely-spelled Wikipedia. I think most of them will think we are joking. ManuelGR 18:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Without consideration of whether the language should exist or not, the vote above does not seem fair to me at all. I am not convinced anonymous votes should be authorized and I am totally convinced sockpuppetry is very unfair. Per one participant request, I run a quick ip check over some username, and consider there is high chance several votes are from the same person. I raised the issue on foundation-l@wikimedia.org Anthere 17:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West Flemish (5 support)

Template:New-language-template West Flemish is a west Low Franconian variety that stayed outside the Hollandic-Brabantic mainstream of the Dutch language for so long that it has become very archaic. Comprehension with Dutch is difficult, and today it is often considered a separate language. Ethnologues and ISO-639-3 both refer to it as Flemish/Vlaams, which is misleading: Vlaams is most often used as an umbrella name for all Dutch-like variants in northern Belgium. There is only an apparent lack of a language called East Flemish: it does exist, but East Flemish is still most often considered a Dutch dialect. Zealandic is a transitional language between West Flemish and Hollandic Dutch. Caesarion 11:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bahasa Riau (1)

  • People interested [if native speaker, please mark (N)]: mother tongue
    • Proposer's user account in Meta and other wikis: id: ghobro User: ghobro
    • User accounts of others who are willing to work on the proposed wiki:
  • ISO code:
  • Proposed domain: ri
  • Relevant infos:
    • Link to article(s) on the language in an existing Wikipedia:
    • Approximate number of speakers: 6,000,000
    • Location(s) spoken
      • Sumatera Island (Indonesia,Asia) (Riau province)
      • State of Johor and Selangor of Malaysia and widely understood by the Malaysian (especially those from peninsula)
    • Closely related languages, if any:Malaysian, Indonesia (Malay)
    • External links to organizations that promote the language:
  • Link to request on a mailing list:
  • Comments:

Riau has many dialects. It's can be divided into 2 major group : Riau Pesisir and Riau Daratan. Riau Pesisir very similar with Bahasa Melayu. Bahasa Riau Daratan same as Bahasa Palembang/Jambi and Minangkabau/Bengkulu whereis ended with o, as example kita (Indonesia) -> kite (Melayu) -> kito (Sumatera :Riau,Palembang,Minang). Bahasa Riau similar with Bahasa Minang in change of at to be ek, in ex : tepat (Indonesia) -> topek(Riau) -> tapek (Minang). However Bahasa-bahasa Riau has many word different from Minangkabau, Melayu and Indonesia.

  • Bahasa Riau is the name of the group of dialects which both Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Melayu are based on. It is not a distinct language in the way Minangkabau or Jambi are considered separate languages, although they are all part of a continuum. I oppose this request, but would support requests for Minangkabau or other clearly distinct languages in the region. --Chamdarae 18:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: At a glance, Riau's like another form of Indonesian or Malaysian (Malay language includes Indonesian as well) dialect, however, their grammar and pronunciation have totally been altered such that Indonesian and Malaysian languages used a standardized grammar called Bahasa Baku while Riau has their own grammar and pronunciation. Excluding Malaysia peninsula (especially state of Johor and Selangor), bahasa baku is widely used thru out the Indonesia and Malaysia. Altough my native is Buginese but I'm totally mastered Riau because it is widely spoken among the resident state of Johor and Selangor (including Kuala Lumpur) and ironically, has a lot of trouble adapting to Bahasa Baku of Malaysian :P. Most people misundestood that Riau is the Malay language because it's widely spoken in Capital city Kuala Lumpur and State of Johor (especially). Untill today, I still used Riau in my daily conversation in stead of Bahasa Baku, which most of my listeners had a lot trouble understanding it. Quoting what Chamdarea said, Minangkabau in Malaysia is one of the Malay dialects however, since Minangkabau originated from Indonesia, thus it's a distinctive language. Same goes to Riau. semoge berjaye teman, kenape tak tulis artikel di wikipedia bahasa indonesie atau inggeris? senang mereke nak paham Zaidpjd 06:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was on the page for no supporters, but in light of Zaidpjd's support, I have moved it back to the main page. Tuf-Kat 08:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karelian (3 support)

  • Link to request on mailing list:
  • ISO code: krl
  • Proposer:
  • Proposed websie name: fiu-krl.wikipedia.org
  • People interested joining:
  • Relevant links:
  • Notes/comments:
    • Related to Finnish. Ask fi to host Karelian ? (9 jan 2005)
      • Related, but different language with own alphabet and orthography. --Untifler 16:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • No, "relation" does not mean "hosted". It is preposterous to suppose a Wikipedia-within-a-Wikipedia.
        • Could you explain it using some examples in other wikis?
          • Sure. Spanish and Italian are related. Neither hosts the other - they have separate Wikis. Hindi and Bengali are related. Again, separate Wikis. English and Nepali are related. Separate Wikis. A different language, a different Wiki -- no Wikipedia hosts another. --Node ue 16:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • More examples: Dutch and Plattdeutsch are related - separate wikis. Russian and Ukrainian are related - separate wikis. Maori and Tahitian are related - separate wikis. Romanian and Aromanian are related - separate wikis. Irish and Scottish Gaelic are similar - separate wikis. Malay and Indonesian are similar - separate wikis. Kazakh and Kyrghyz are related - separate wikis. (Sometimes I don't know why I'm doing this.) Scott Gall 11:40, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • No ISO code. How about fiu-kar? (fiu is the generic code for "other Finno-Ugric languages) Or maybe just fi-kar?
      • krl is listed to be a language code --Untifler 13:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Where is it listed ? (9 Apr 2005)
        • "krl" is not a standard language code. (9 Apr 2005)
        • "krl" is not an ISO language code. (18 Apr 2005)
    • The problem is that Karelian no official standard language. Karelian Proper, Olonetsian and Tver Karelian have their own standard languages. The aim is, however, to unify them, but it will be very difficult due to big differences between the dialects. --Hippophaë 19:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Belgian man 18:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support As I know from my good friend in Karelia, Karelian is quite different from Finnish. Also, nowdays, after being neglected for a long time, there is more interest for this language: there are newspapers, radiobroadcasts and even books in this languge now. Karelian is also studied in Petrozavodsk State University (Petrozavodsk is Karelia's capital). Therefore I consider that Karelian language have nrcessary potential for wiki. Kneiphof 11:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Is official language in Karelia.--Taichi - (^_^) 19:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. No official speakers have showed up yet... another empty Wikipedia is not a happy prospect. --Node ue 09:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages&oldid=239256"