ISO code : nsk/ns/qnds/ndsn(Needs to be voted on what to use!)
Proposed domain: uncertain
Relevant infos: One of the Dutch official languages just like Frisian and Limburgs
Link to article on the language in an existing Wikipedia: Low Saxon and North Veluws
App. number of speakers: No estimate available except for the province of Groningen which is: 592,000. My estimate is about 1.8 million who speak Dutch-Low Saxon.
Actually redundant with nds:, but it would be very neat, just since the nds: Wikipedia uses German spelling, and articles in Dutch based spelling would be largely incompatible with it. Caesarion 14:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The number of speakers might be slightly too optimistic: 1.8 million seems more likely.
Strong oppose. Servien is proposing to divide Low Saxon based on national boundaries and imagined differences, rather than true dialectal differences. However, if Servien limits his request to Veluws only, I will support it. --Node ue 16:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But ADMIT that the fact that nds:, being for all Low German varieties, already has almost unbearable differences (or did you think an Apeldoorn dialect native speaker could understand West Pomerian?), and that these differences, in combination with the wide gap between Dutch and German spellings make nfs: unsuitable for any content in Dutch Low Saxon dialects. Caesarion 17:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lowlands-l does not help here. After some discussions we have decided to use the German based spelling according to SASS for the nds wikipedia. The spelling proposed by Lowlands-l is no option for us. And I can understand very well, that the Dutch based spelling and our spelling do not match. In addition to that we have another problem: when Low Saxon lacks a word, we (on the German side of the border) have the tendency to borrow a German word, and on the other side of the border they would certainly prefer to borrow a dutch word. The language fell apart a long time ago. In fact most people in Germany do not even know that there is a Low Saxon language on the other side of the border. When I think about the two different versions of the Norse wikipedia that are made for one single country and when I think about the Aromunian wikipedia, I think that having a separate wikipeda for nds-nl is the best option. HeikoEvermann 11:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually we are unifying the spelling (to the spelling according to Sass) whereever we find differences. The only real exception that we list alternative spellings for the title of the article in the first paragraph and we sometimes provide redirects from alternative spellings to the main article. But the article itself should follow Sass. HeikoEvermann 10:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In fact this fact has no relevance whatsoever. Being a native speaker has not been a prerequisite for working on any wikipedia. I am not a native English speaker either and yet I have made contributions to en.wikipedia.org. HeikoEvermann21:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For what shall we try first? I looked for a comparison in English language and I would say, that nds-de and nds-nl are as far apart in pronounciation and in spelling as modern English and the 1400 example of middle English in en:Middle English (this isn't the best comparison because one is a parallel development and the other serial, but the best example I found). If it were possible I really would like and want one Wikipedia for both. But it would be very hard to understand. Sure, if there would be a common orthography neither based singly on German nor on Dutch, this would be easier, but there is no such common orthography that is in broader use. The actual reality is, that we need two Wikipedias. --Slomox 16:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
strong support. there's nothing like unity in diversity :-) oscar 00:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
support. Maybe we should count the votes now? Guaka 20:49, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
5 7 people willing to work on it, 234 5 other people's support, 1 generally support and
123 4 non-DLS speakers oppose.
Well, if it's so relevant who is and isn't DLS speakers of OPPOSING votes, perhaps we should count the same for support votes? Out of all the massive amazing 12 supporters, a whopping 2 of them are real native speakers. 2-0 is not a good enough consensus for any WP's creation, so I suggest you don't exclude the opinions of non-speakers as it's to your disadvantage, especially since the issues we raise are very real and rather than completely denying the possibility of WPs in DLS varieties, we are merely proposing it in a different framework. --Node ue07:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I generally support this proposal, but I would recommend 1) narrowing the range of dialects covered, and 2) allowing for further wikipedias at a later date in other varieties of Low Saxon in the Netherlands, such as Gronings and Stellingwerfs, if and when there is sufficient support for these. (I realise these issues have been discussed on the mailing lists, but it doesn't seem that there is a sufficient degree of consensus yet for this request to proceed any further. I don't want to rekindle any flame war here - merely find some kind of workable solution. After all, I think everyone here wants to see a wikipedia in some form(s) of Dutch Low Saxon.) --Chamdarae17:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Dutch Low-Saxon is a combination of dialects without a single language combining them. As such, something written in Gronings will be as incompatible with something written in Twents or Achterhoeks as something written in Dutch or German Low Saxon would be. As far as I know, no unified orthography or even vocabulary exists. - 81.70.91.20722:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands have in common that their spelling is based on the Dutch spelling, while the spellings used in Germany are based on the German spelling. Best example is the use of capitals for nouns, almost everybody in Germany who writes in Low Saxon uses it, while in the Netherlands almost no one uses it. Dinsdagskind18:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bart van der Heij, please understand that the reason for opposing this is not that I don't think Low Saxon dialects should have Wikipedias. Rather, it is that I think it is too broad and imaginary of a grouping. I advocate for separate Wikipedias for example Veluws, Gronings, Stellingwerfs. So I do support Wikipedias in Dutch Low Saxon varieties, but not as it is sorted in this proposal. Node ue02:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it back. There is only one native speaker willing to work on it at this time, and there is no consensus for its creation, so this request can not be granted. Tuf-Kat15:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Servien, apparently you don't know the meaning of consensus. There are currently 12 people who agree to the creation of a " Dutch-Low Saxon " Wikipedia, and 3 who think it's better to have Wikipedias for individual dialects. I imagine that if you propose to have a Veluws Wikipedia, you will have consensus very quickly. But 12-3 is not consensus. Besides, many of the supporters are users of German-Low Saxon who are just saying "oh yes there's a spelling difference" without know about dialect problems in the Netherlands, or Dutch people saying "oh yes it's a regional language" without recognising the immense issue of dialects which Servien seems to want to ignore by filling up a so-called "Dutch Low Saxon" Wikipedia with his native Veluuws. --Node ue02:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 12-3 is not consensus. And only Servien claims here to be a native speaker -- if there are more, then those people need to notate that. Tuf-Kat03:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I now oppose, making this even less of a consensus at 12-4. I may support if someone can take the time to convince me that there is a standard method of writing that can be called "Dutch Low-Saxon". Tuf-Kat03:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a fourth objection here? There are only 3 (Node ue, Tuk-Kat and anonymous)... Node ue was already listed, besides he doesn't even speak DLS. As mentioned before Servien is (N) and Bart is (N)... two natives.... I think 12-3 is a consenses, there is a very good indication DLS is a much wanted Wiki, the people who object are not even DLS or even speak it, I don't even think they should have a say, if they know the language that's a different case, making several dialect wiki's is just too much, you'll have to create Noord-Veluws, Oost-Veluws, Grunnings, Twents, Aachterhoeks, Sallaands, Stellingwarfs, Suud-Drenths, Midden-Drents, Veenkoniaols, Westerwolds, Twents-Graofschaps, Urks etc. BTW: Samogitian (Žemaitėška), Banyumasan don't even have 5 people willing to work on it nor are they native, how does that work. Servien08:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC) Julle koppies werkie lekkerie![reply]
Oops, I miscounted. It is 12-3, and now that Bart has indicated his nativeness, it has two native speakers. Banyumasan has two native speakers and no opposition, so there is clearly consensus for that. There is no consensus here. If you actually attempted to convince me that there is a method of writing called "Dutch Low-Saxon", I'm still open to supporting, but arguing over consensus won't make it so. I for one would have no qualms about a dozen or more different dialectical Low Saxon wikis. Tuf-Kat10:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Tuf-Kat. It's actually 13-3, one person generally supports it, but anyway, in the procedures it states that there should be at least 5 willing to work on it, it doesn't say if the wiki should be blocked if some non-native people have doubts about it. (Some aren't even surprised about Node ue, he's kind of got a reputation *not meaning to be rude or anything, but kind of does concerning new wiki's*) The nds-wiki, already exist which covers for most of the German LS dialects, so it's proven it can work. This means that the DLS user don't have anywhere to go besides the Dutch wiki for now, different wiki's for each dialect would be kind of impossible, this way the smaller dialects don't have a place to go and the problem isn't solved yet, a common writing system for articles can be thought of by the community, these are small differences, plus each dialect having a large amount of ways to write. So that's why I wanted to create the DLS wiki. Servien12:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, first of all, what you said about me is VERY wrong. This is the first and so far the only request for a new Wikipedia that I have explicitly opposed. I have supported, or abstained from, all other requests for new Wikipedias, to the point that it irritates some people who would rather not have Wikipedias in languages like Gothic, Cantonese, or Ladino. Second of all. The existing NDS-WP is not working for "most of the German LS dialects". Currently, it's written in North LS of Hamburg area, including dialects like Schleswig-Holstein, East Frisian LS... but nevertheless it is difficult for speakers of other dialects, such as Westphalian, Eastphalian, Mennonite Low Saxon, LS dialects of Poland... etc. So unlike your horrid proposal, it serves based on a real linguistic boundary instead of a national boundary --Node ue08:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Tuf-Kat was right - the vote now stands at 12-4. Servien, please don't take my words out of context. If my meaning wasn't clear before, I'll make it clear now. I opposedon't fully support having a wikipedia covering all Low Saxon languages in the Netherlands. Before I was actually trying to find some kind of consensus where there clearly was none - although on some matters I think we can agree. Because even the supporters of this proposal agree there is no genuine linguistic basis to it. There are, of course orthographic differences between Low Saxon varieties in the Netherlands and Germany, but then there are also orthographic differences within the Netherlands too. They are often treated as separate languages, both by their speakers as well as by many linguists. Is there any evidence that speakers of Gronings, Stellingwerfs, or other varieties are interested in working on this project? No. Quite the opposite. The two languages I mentioned have both been requested separately (albeit without much support at this stage). What I recommend you do is create a wiki for Veluws. If you find speakers of other Low Saxon varieties who support your plans, include them. If speakers of all the main varieties of "DLS" become interested and there's no significant opposition from other speakers, call it "Dutch-Low Saxon" if you want. But if some of them want to have separate wikis, let them. There's no reason why there can't be successful wikis in multiple varieties of Low Saxon. I support having a Veluws wikipedia. --Chamdarae17:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm not even gonna bother anymore this is getting really irritating, people blocking the creation who don't even speak it, I'm not gonna bother creating a Veluws, Stellingwarfs or Grunnings wiki because there won't be enough support for that individually. There is a German nds wiki so why shouldn't there be a Dutch nds wiki, this is kind of discriminating. Servien17:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, Servien. There's a great test-wiki now written in Veluws! Keep writing articles like these and things will be fine. There are many people who will support you. I will even try to write an article (at least a stub) on Ny-Seelaand or Koreaons something. In time I'm sure there will be a large community working on this wiki. Actually calling it "Dutch-Low Saxon" won't necessarily help, because there's no clear support at this stage from speakers of other Low Saxon varieties. Maybe I was a little harsh just before, but I objected to my words being taken out of context. My intention is not to block a wiki being formed - I hope one is formed as soon as possible - but I have *never* supported one covering all Low Saxon languages used in the Netherlands. --Chamdarae18:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chamdarae, there is actually a support for the DLS wiki from Twents and Grunnings etc. there's only one anonymous person who created the seperate wiki's. I don't actually feel much for only a Veluws wiki, don't think it will help much, there are not that much people speaking Veluws nowadays, there are more Grunnings and Stellingwarfs and Twents etc. Seperately the wiki's will never comprise of many articles, together they probably/hopefully will, if you'd create a seperate wiki for Veluws etc. you'll have for example about 15 articles, and together about 100/150. Servien18:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Servien, this seems to me to be an unnessecarily grim outlook. I don't know for sure how many people speak a variety of Veluws, but I think it's somewhere between 100.000 and 500.000. There are already quite a few people on the internet who can speak Veluws. You have certainly already written plenty of Test WP articles. If a "Dutch Low Saxon" WP will only ever have a total of 150 articles, I don't think it's worth creating. I think that is a grim prediction -- Wikipedias in languages like Faroese or Basque already have many more than that. With a little work, I think a Veluws-only WP would do quite nicely. --Node ue07:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was just an example... but anyway, I think it's best to stick with nds-nl, which is an actual language (not a dialect). The code can be changed, no problem, it's not actually called Dutch-Low Saxon, just Low Saxon (Nedersaksisch) but since there are two completely different versions of Low Saxon (Dutch and German; in German it's actually called Plattduutsch only the official ISO-code is nds)... the prefix nds (Nedersaksisch) is more often used in The NL. But anyway this wiki has the least objections, creating seperate dialect wiki's is not a good thing if you ask me. Servien
CONCLUSION: Seperate dialect wiki's are no option this will be too much and everyone will want one. Sticking to the original situation is kind of pointless. Like to know what the best solution would be. Servien16:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit late, but I also do support NijmanN (of course as a native speaker).
I still don't think having a wiki in Nedersaksisch is the ideal option, but if native speakers support it, I won't block it. I hope that it can help all the Low Saxon dialects / languages in the Netherlands. --Chamdarae13:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support The "Nedersaksisch" dialects of the Netherlands maybe cover 1/10 of the area of the Low Saxon dialects in Germany - there is no reason why they not should not fit into a common Wikipedia. I am willing to contribute. I hate it when people from other continents (15-year old schoolboys) are pretending they know better. Frünn21:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And how would you know better than me, seeing as you're not a native speaker? Does being from the Netherlands or Germany somehow make you an infinitely deep well of Lowlands Saxon knowledge? Or are you the one who's pretending to know better? --Node ue05:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Articles written should be categorised as "Grunnings artikel" etc. as Arbeo suggested, the interface will be translated in more than one dialect and there should be links like e.g. "taol" will also have a "spraok" redirect depends on what the article is written in. BTW thanks for all the support so far. Servien08:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem a satisfactory solution. As I noted elsewhere, it is likely that one dialect will come to dominate. Dialects with more speakers, will have more articles. Thus, dialects like Stellingwerfs will come out under-represented. Already, you have done a disservice to the NDSNL WP before its creation by replacing all uses of the word "sproak" (and "streektersproak") with the word "toal" (and "streektoal"), even though the article is still labled as written in Grunegers. With regards to support. If all issues like this are clearly resolved, I will change my vote to support. I will only do it begrudgingly, though, because your attitude has been one that you want to ignore all opposition and shove your request through the door without answering to the concerns people have, and such an attitude is clearly a bad thing on ANY Wikipedia, let alone a brand-new one. --Node ue10:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and you have totally ignored the fact that "nedersaksisch"/"nedersassich" is also used in Germany to a certain extent. To rename your request "nedersaksisch" is to make it totally ambiguous. The response to it is "We already have a Nedersassisch Wikipedia". Even the linguistically inaccurate "Dutch Low Saxon" is better to distinguish it from the existing ndswp. --Node ue10:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The term Plattduutsch is actually used in Germany, the term Nedersaksisch is almost never used in Germany, the makers of the nds wiki reportedly named it Nedersassisch because of Dutch speakers. I can't remember changing articles with sproak/taol... but anyway... this was not my intension and certainly won't happen agains. Just for info sakes... there are more Stellingwarfs speakers than Veluws or Sallands so don't think there will be less in that dialect... but we get your point you're against it, but most are not, you know how a democracy works non, majority rule accepted. If you're so against this wiki I'd like to invite you to request all the dialect wiki's seperately, you won't find very much support for it. (which is actually an understatement) - Servien 'n Goeje naom veur joe sol Seurpiet wesen, jy kan beheurlik krimmenere op s'n Stellingwarfs!
In fact, when you say "neddersassisch" in Germany that means "coming from Niedersachsen", but nobody will think of the language Plattdüütsch. Överklook is slimmer as tumpig (Plattdeutsches Sprichwort)Arbeo16:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added a choice for the ISO code... and put it in bold... does anyone know any better ones? Serv
No unofficial ISO codes are acceptable because of the possibility of future conflicts with real ISO codes. So, it can't be a two or three letter code. Tuf-Kat04:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
