Requests for new languages

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Note: In the very near future this page, among others, will be integrated into the process at Wikimedia Incubator. You may wish to withhold suggestions until the interchange is complete.

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, Wikisource, 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.
  2. You must have an account here on the Meta wiki.
  3. Copy and paste the template to the end of the discussion ongoing section.
  4. Find the ISO 639-2 code or propose a code for your language (for future compatibility, be sure to consult the ISO 639-3 draft, which covers most of the world's languages).
  5. Fill in all fields in the template.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.

FAQ

  • 1. 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). This procedure may not be ideal for all circumstances, but should be followed if reasonable.
  • 2. 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.
  • 3. Can there be wikis in ancient languages?
  • 4. Can there be wikis in artificial languages?
    • Yes. There are already wikis available in Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, Lojban , Volapük. 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 considered the existence of the Klingon Wikipedia to be unacceptable, and a proposal to shut it down eventually succeeded (See also Talk page).
    • Please place all new requests for Wikipedias in artificial languages at Requests for new languages/Non-natural.
  • 5. 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

Template:New-language-template

Moved requests

Discussion ongoing

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

Upper Silesian Wikipedia

submitted verification final decision
This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 22:02:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Number of speakers: 483,000
    (? is it really countable ? Also large amounts of native speakers consider it as a dialect of Polish not seperate language D_T_G 16:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Locations spoken: South Poland: Silesian Voivodeship, Opole Voivodeship; neighbouring areas of the Czech Republic (so called "Zaolzie" - a part of Cieszyn Silesia), but Cieszyn Silesian considered to be too different to be in the same wiki

Summary

Support:

  1. Bartek m0 (proposer)
  2. stAn N
  3. Przykuta N
  4. Drozdp N
  5. Nowis N
  6. kirq N
  7. Jaborygyn N
  8. Hermann N
  9. Pimke N
  10. Adrianer N
  11. Szoltys1990 N I agree with Artur and Tristan (Szoltys1990 at pl-wiki)
  12. Kamilus Silesius N
  13. Buzkid
  14. Hégésippe Cormier
  15. Ausir
  16. Taw
  17. TOR
  18. Datrio
  19. Adziura
  20. J"E"D (Ency)
  21. WarX
  22. Polimerek
  23. Caesarion
  24. Critto (Critto at pl-wiki)
  25. Eteru I'm not an Upper-Silesian native speaker. Neither, I consider it a separate language, but I do support the efforts to preserve and promote own culture.
  26. ABach
  27. Excumbed (Excumbed at pl-wiki)
    Wisnia13 - There is no such Wikipedian neither pl-wiki or en-wiki, only at meta (two edits). I moved it to not logged-in votes D T G 15:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Kroton (Kroton at pl-wiki)
  29. Slawojar
  30. Edi1123
  31. Filemon
  32. MatthiasGor
  33. Endriuj (Endriuj at pl-wiki)
  34. Antares
    Michał
  35. Uncle Davey
  36. IJzeren Jan
  37. Kajo
  38. Melancholie
  39. Tuvok
  40. Pojdulos
  41. Dobromila
  42. Brosen
  43. Mix321
  44. ToAr
  45. Kondzio199011:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  46. Marcimon
  47. Radegast89
  48. Bartekbas
  49. Xabi (Xabi at pl-wiki)
  50. Halibutt (native speaker of Polish, basic Silesian)
  51. nl:Gebruiker:Boudewijn Idema
  52. SupportSroulik 16:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support--Vladyslav Savelo 00:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Jeffrey Garland 14:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC) . Language (I learnt from polish site) is normalised and codificated. That's why I support it.[reply]

Oppose:

  1. Jörg Knappen (not enough supporters at the time of the vote)
  2. Borkowicz (because all Silesians know Polish anyway)
  3. Wanted (most Silesians use Polish as their primary language, no standardized spelling)
  4. Radomil (Polish speaker, Poznań dialect) not separate language, only dialect of Polish, no standardized spelling
  5. Arbeo
  6. Kpjas
  7. Panther
  8. Gdarin | talk
  9. Molobo (Molobo at en-wiki)
  10. Herr Kriss (explaination in comments section) N
  11. Chepry it's not a real language, actually it's not even a dialect
  12. tsca ✉ - this really should be a Wiktionary; the supporters are discussing the vocabulary and spelling
  13. Toudi
  14. Tompot (Tompot at pl-wiki) (Silesian is not a language it's dialect with a lot affiliations with [[1]])
    I would say Czech language had bigger influence ;P D T G 15:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Raetius - Oppose - (see other comments) similiar as user- Wisnia13
  15. Sobol dajcie ludzie luz. Jak bedzie coś takiego wyglądać: Jo je ślonzyok i je ja hop N
  16. LUCPOL 10:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Byda za, jeśli to bydzie śląsko wikipedia, a nie jakaś tam górnośląsko...[reply]
  17. Darwinek it's not a real language, actually it's not even a dialect
  18. D_T_G N I made my mind. Actually I oppose creating Silesian Wikipedia in such weird way, see comments section.
  19. Michał - very different from Polish, but it's still a dialect, not as Kashubian, which has its own traditions, poems, literature etc.
  20. Botev no standarized spelling, see discussion below
  21. No standard spelling, linguists divided over whether it's a language at all, and even if it is, it will never grow to any reasonable size anyway. +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Kolanin 21:02, 19 June 2006 (CEST)
  23. Angr 11:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC): spoken dialect only, no literary tradition, no ISO-639 code[reply]
  24. Paelius 09:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Szwedzki 13:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC). No standardized spelling, still a dialect.[reply]
  26. Radekk no ISO-639 code
  27. Egon 07:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Jeroenvrp 13:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC) - This is a dialect of Polish.[reply]
  29. Test wikipedia is dead -- Raghav 14:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
      • I support its creation, too. There are lots of people in Silesia who speak Silesian, and the language is an important part of Silesian identity. Besides, though this isn't neccessarily related to the language, more than 100,000 people declared Silesian nationality in the last census in Poland. Organizations like Ruch Autonomii Slaska (Silesian Authonomy Movement), promote Silesian identity and living in peace and agreement with all other nationalities in all of Europe. Critto
      • Gush don't forget about us: Cieszyn Silesians, we are also Silesians, but propably never be of Silesian nationality, and will be never talking about our dialect a stand-alone language. I'm really bored with you to speak about that you are not "only real Silesians", for me you're just "Prajsok" or "Sapieron", and if you wan't understand me, please read all my answers here. Don't forget that this project is renamed to Upper Silesian not (all) Silesian. D_T_G 17:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
        • The code "sli" is used for Lower Silesian (Germanic), which is also spoken in southern Poland(...) There is no Lower Silesian (Germianic) spoken in Lower Silesia now. Probably there was such a dialect in Silesia but it's simply dead as Germans moved (or were moved) due to international agreements after WWII - and simply died... Presently so called Silesian is only a dialect of Polish - it's not a stand alone language as Kaszëbe and while using this term we think about an Upper Silesian dialect. Refering to Lower Silesia we can hardly speak about a particular dialect as the language there is an official Polish with slight rests of a dialect of the people who migrated from the East after WWII and influences of dialects from Upper Silesia and Wielkopolska. Language used in Western Poland (in so-called regained lands) is the closest to the official one (hochPolish :) ). However differences between regions aren't big due to communists' unilateralization policy. If you'd have any question regarding Lower Silesia (I'm from there =) just ask. =) Aegis Maelstrom 02:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • "sli" is still the code for Lower Silesian, even if it is moribund (or even extinct). There is no code for Upper Silesian, because Ethnologue treats it as a dialect of Polish. From what you're saying it sounds unlikely that there will be a request for a Lower Silesian wikipedia, but even so Upper Silesian would need to use a different code. --Chamdarae 11:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • "sli" Lower silesian is neither dead nor dying, since it continues to be spoken on the left bank of river Neisse (around Goerlitz). I agree that you hardly find any speakers of it in the now polish territory, because ethnic cleansing was almost to 100% there.
              • Here I agree. Regarding (Upper) Silesian - as I have mentioned:) it is a dialect - like Polish highlanders' dialect. IMHO it's not that dramatic kind of difference like between Hochdeutsch and Niederdeutsch, for instance although it can be sometimes difficult to understand for a standard-only Polish user. It could be even funny to see these Wikipedias and personally I could learn something interesting about smaller cultures within Polish culture and ethnicity. The only thing I'm afraid is if there are enough passionates to run these projects. :] Aegis Maelstrom 06:38, 9 December 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
  • Support, but enough native speakers have to be found. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 04:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, silesian is not my native language but I was born here and I speak silesian very well. Silesian sounds slavic but many words are german (tankshtela - gas station; gruba - coalmine; klapshnita - sandwich etc) stAn 23:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm interested to know how different Silesian is from Polish - is there much difficulty with communication? Also, what do most people generally speak? Silesian? Polish-ised Silesian? Silesian-ised Polish? Standard Polish? Or a mixture of these according to the situation? And is there much difference between Silesian in Poland, and Silesian in the Czech Republic? --Chamdarae 11:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pure Silesian is different, people who speaks only Polish can't understood it. People who understand Old-polish (becouse Silesian contains also words from ancient Polish) and German should understood most. But now on Silesia most people speaks Polish, people who speaks Silesian are minority (becouse of migrations afrer IIWW ). There are some comunities living in Ruda Śląska, Bytom, and in some districts of Katowice, Zabrze, Chorzów etc. Many people speaks now partly Silesian, they speaks Polish with some Silesian words (like I do). Pure silesian is dying language now. In communist times Silesian wasn't forbidden but if you want get to the higher level in hierarchy you shouldn't use this language - Silesian was language of labourers, mostly coalminers and steelworkers. I don't know the situation in Czech Republic. stAn 13:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The poll is on since November 7, but only 2 speakers of slavonic silesian and 3 more supporters showed up. This is not a sufficient base for a new wikipedia, I'm afraid. Jörg Knappen 17:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support if enough native speakers appear. As far as I know, though, Silesian doesn't have one standard for otography, unlike Kashubian. Won't that be a problem? Or will more than one standad be accepttable or automated conversion will be used? As for the domain name, maybe pl-sil if we can't use sil itself? Ausir 10:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support So, if you want, look for difference in grammar - Gwara śląska (it is only part of differences), [[[:wikt:pl:Wikipedysta:Przykuta/słownik_gwary_śląskiej|here]]] and here too to find differences in used words. Problems are - 1. how to note in Silesian, and 2. problem with different dialects of Silesian, but -Zeflik, mosz przi rynce ta luftplompa uod moplika, ale? Are you able to translate it? :) Przykuta 22:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support of course Drozdp 12:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Przykuta: I couldn't translate your sentence, but try this: Przyniosłech wom dule, dejcie jeji w przód zależeć, tu jeszcze kapki agrezu, jo mioł wiyncej, ale dejcie pozór, bo mie zokrynta strzyliła i mie wykipiało ryszte, a ni jeżech pampóniem co by jóm narechcić. Jaktóż chcycie tyż uherki, cobych sie nie wyrzgoł za fest? Believe me I was a witness of a talk between Silesians from Cieszyn and Upper Silesia, they had really big problems to understand each other... If you really want to call that "the language", please don't refer it to Cieszyn Silesia (and Zaolzie as well, cause it's a part of Cieszyn Silesia, they speak mainly as we (at Polish side), but propably Czech language had some minor influence on it. I cant imagine how I would work at that new Wikipedia using my local Silesian dialect. D_T_G
    • So, do you oppose the creation of Upper Silesian Wikipedia generally, or just oppose the creation of a common Wikipedia for both Cieszyn and Upper Silesian? Ausir 14:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they will underline that it is written in UPPER Silesian not (all Silesians language) I won't be oppose. "U nos to zrazu idzie poznać sapieronów po jich godce, bo oni jóm majóm inszóm" this simple sentence show's how much we fill different from Upper Silesians. D_T_G 14:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think tbe best thing to do would be renaming the request to "Upper Silesian Wikipedia" to avoid confusion with both Cieszyn Silesian and the Germanic Lower Silesian. Ausir 15:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but only if it's called Upper Silesian. (/me is from Lower Silesia, and we have nothing to do with this language/dialect). Taw 16:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - of course the Silesian mentioned here is the "Upper Silesian (Slavonic)" because the is de facto dead Adrianer (Adrianer) 18:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - why? I think that Silesians know polish langueage and speed of Wikipedia isn't very speed, is it? So why we will create another Wikipedia. (Sorry for mistakes, my english isn't very good what you can see. Borkowicz
    • We already have a Kashubian Wikipedia, and all Kashubians speak Polish as well. Same with dozens of other minority dialects from other countries which also have Wikipedias. Ausir 18:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pobably all Sorbians speak german, and they have an own Wikipedia, Kashubians too, so i think that this is not a good argument Adrianer 19:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Most of the given number of people use Polish as their native language; also Silesian dialect doesn't have a defined spelling, which results in many variants of the same word. Wanted 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the moment: there are still too many open questions now (distinct enough from Polish?, which variant(s) could be used for a Wikipedia?, is there some common standard for writing Silesian?, geographical scope? ...). Maybe a Test Wikipedia could yield a little more clarity here. Arbeo 19:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not a real language or even a dialect, rather tool for Silesian autonomy campaigners Kpjas 20:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - (Upper) Silesian is not a language. Can you see it here? There is only German Lower Silesian, dialect of Standard German. The Silesian we talk about is an archaic form of Polish language with Czech and German influences. There is no standard of this dialect. It is different in Cieszyn, in Ruda Śląska and in almost every city of Silesia. talk 12:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, we need test for that project. Przykuta 23:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support' NATIVE SPEAKER

Silesian is not a dialect of Standard German. It is a polish language, there are some discussion wheter it is a dialect or a language. The fact is, that Silesian has more different (original) elements that differentiate it from polish; many more then Kaszuby language. The gramma is therefore polish, some lexical elements are German. Please, look at some scientific research before you talk about some matters. The discussion is about the identity of people living in Silesia. In fact, there are some strong differencies between Cieszyn, Opole and Katowice - but all the regions belong to the Silesia or Upper Silesia. There are many people here who speak Silesian. There should be finally something where people from Silesia could talk about their matters in their language. Is something about the fairness... maj_chow

    • Please do not treat all Silesians from different regions like Cieszyn Silesians and Upper Silesians like they were the same. If you know Polish read here:
      Górny Śląsk nie jest jednolity narodowościowo, kulturalnie, a nawet różni go mentalność ludzka w różnych jego rejonach. Oto przedstawienie głównych podziałów ziemi górnośląskiej.
      And:
      Śląsk Cieszyński zamieszkują głównie Polacy wyznania ewangelicko-augsburskiego (...) It's an little untrue, cause here live a lot of katolics who are also Poles. (...)Potocznie mieszkańcy to tzw. cieszynioki czy cesaroki. Choć ziemie te, podobnie jak Opolszczyzna, mogą się nazywać górnośląskimi - to jednak w większości mieszkańcy tego nie chcą.
      It's true, for example I'm from Cieszyn Silesia am protestant and believe me: if someone would called me "Upper Silesian" or "Chanys" he would got me mad, we really really really fill different from Upper Silesians, and we have many many places like simple net forums to talk about our matter in our "language", if Wikipedia would be written in both Silesian dialects it would be really freak, cause our dialects differences are really big, we have been in two different countries, they in Prussia, we in Habsburgs' Imperium, those two hundred years influenced much on our dialects, see that these project has been renamed to Upper Silesian, and although Cieszyn Silesia is historically a part of Upper Silesia we will always underline that we are not Upper Silesians. BTW, I have hear it first time about bigger difference between pure Polish and Silesian than Kashubian and pure Polish, I speak in Cieszyn Silesian and have heard Kashubian, and would never say what you have just said :P Have you ever heard Cieszyn Silesian Dialect? D_T_G 17:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose No rules for the dialect as it varies from city to city. No common standard. Very limited use (the number of users is probabably a lot smaller then put) --Molobo 14:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To everyone who objects on the grounds that it's just not a language - many regional dialects of other languages already have their Wikipedias as well. As for those who say it's not even a dialect but merely a slang, Rada Języka Polskiego (the Polish Language Council) disagrees, as it (and other institutions) calls it a dialect numerous times. Ausir 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm native speaker, but there is a fact you cant deny - silesian isn't standardized yet, there are many 'schools' of writting in silesian, i think that first ppl must know how to write in silesian, cause otherwise silesian wiki would be a tower of babel. Also like Molobo said - there are many kinds of silesian, so which kind of silesian is the correct one? When there will be one way of writting silesian words and you will choose one kind of silesian as an official silesian wiki language i will support this idea, but i don't this that it's possible right now. Herr Kriss
    • Really small support. I'm Cieszyn Silesian native speaker, I was, am and always be afraid of making one standard of Silesian language. Firstly it will be very artificial, moreover it will be deffinitely closer to Upper Silesian not Cieszyn Silesian, and we will never support it. D_T_G 12:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion got long so I will repeat it to make it clear: Upper Silesian Wiki would be a fun but it's difficult to make it useful rather than destructive.
    • Firstly, call it Upper Silesian - other parts of Silesia speak different languages (Lower uses pure Polish with a smaller addition of regionalisms than any other region of Poland!).
      • There is one problem, Silesian people which are using dialect, wouldn’t call themselves Upper Silesians only Silesians (Ślonzocy), so “Upper Silesian Wikipedia” would be incorrect, there is no such word in dialect like “Upper Silesian”. Correctly would be in “Ślonsko” in addition “Ślonsko” isn’t “Śląska” or “Stela”. --Nowis 23:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Firstly stela means "from hear" - I would never called any Wikipedia in such way. Secondly not all ethnic Silesians would call themselves "Ślonzok", in Cieszyn Silesia they would call themselves Cieszyniok and Ślónzok (read Shlunzok not Shlonzok). And some Upper Silesians would call themselves "Upper Silesian" - "Górnoślonzok" in Opole Silesia :) D_T_G 20:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Secondly, call it dialect, as it's not a language.
    • Then, try to standarize it and make sure you don't create a new dialect/language. Don't do it jut by yourselves.
    • And finally, make sure it is not a tool in hands of the few frustrated politicians who will show up and try to become famous playing the card of "national Wikipedia", cultural proof etc. It is not and it shouldn't be although if it would help to preserve this culture, all at least its remainings for future generations and teach other people about it, I would be very happy with that. Greets and good luck! aegis maelstrom δ 03:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Silesian has no one standard, as it is really a dialect continuum. But so are Alemannisch and Low German, which both have quite succesful Wikipedias despite the differences in different versions of the dialects. There is no one standard for writing Silesian, but some books and other texts in Silesian exist, which can be used as models. Ausir 18:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tere are also many books in Poznań dialect, wich is much more homogenic (due to smaller area of usage). "Silesian" is in fact a group of dialects, without any standarisation. Wikipedia is not place to find it, according to no orginal reserch rule. Radomil 22:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Silesian" is in fact a group of dialects, without any standarisation. Wikipedia is not place to find it, according to no orginal reserch rule. Radomil 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Silesian is a dialect continuum, but so are Alemannisch and Low German which already have their Wikipedias. Ausir 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The arguments: language, no language, dialect, not standardized etc. are irrelevant, just look at Alemannisch. I think Silesian does have the necessary speaker base who would be able to create a decent Wikipedia. However, I don't understand why the Silesian speakers are experimenting on the Polish wiki instead of creating a test-wiki on Meta, as it is usually the case. The choice of a spelling system for the Silesian wiki is none of my business, but realistically, I don't think that the spelling proposed on pl:Górnośląska wikipedia will be a huge success. It just seems way too weird. Please have a look at Mr. Grzegorz Wieczorek's proposal. The author seems very competent, why don't you guys invite him to cooperate? Tuvok 23:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to remind that Lacky janzyk (spelling Latsky language) promoted by Ondra Łysohory is commonly considered as a Czech dialect, although Ondra Łysohory - who has been writing poetry in that language was calling himself a Silesian. D_T_G 16:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would forgot to remind that large numbers of native speakers consider that spoke (Silesian) as a dialect of Polish language, only about 50 000 declared their language as "Silesian language", even 120 000 of 170 000 people who declared a Silesian nationality declared their mother tongue as a Polish language. Many of them looks at the actuall efforts of codification (this codificated writing will be most propably used at Silesian/Upper Silesian Wikipedia) as a effort of "creating new language" and purposeful distinction from Polish language. D_T_G 20:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So actually I oppose its creating. I'm afraid of really weird spelling (as also noticed Tuvok) made in order to POV-pushing that it is a distinct language. In my opinion the proposed Silesian Wikipedia should be made for all Silesians and writing must be a consensus between Silesians who consider Silesian as a seperate language and as only a dialect of Polish (which are in majority). D_T_G 22:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose as long as we don't agree on which spelling standard is going to be used. Only under the condition that such standard is picked up AND the Wikipedia is called Upper Silesian I shall vote in favour of its creation. For the time being I am against. Botev
    Yes but the name of Wikipedia wouldn't be written in polish "Śląska" or english "Silesian", but in Silesian dialect Ślůnsko or Ślojnsko. This make a difference.--Nowis 20:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nl:Gebruiker:Boudewijn Idema, 14:11, 1 September 2006

Pfälzisch (15 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral)

Template:New-language-template Words from person who made the request: Pfälzisch (in English perhaps Palatinian) is a German dialect, spoken in the South-West. Nearly everyone who lives there and whose ancestors come from there is able to speak the dialect. 84.171.216.148 January 6, 2005 14:53 (CET)

  • Support--Fratele lui Bonaparte, il cunosti? 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Belgian man (nl na en) 13:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Caesarion Dear anonymous user, did you post a message about this at de:Wikipedia:Fragen zur Wikipedia? 13:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Come on. There is a Ripuarian Wikipedia, so why not a Palation one??? --Abzt 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, because I would like to get more information. But I've added the template above and the links to articles about the language, where there was only a poor paragraph to request. German users are the key for this request. I hope they will have some interest for it, and find enough native or advanced users to help it. :o) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • moderate Support. I love the language, several near to me use it every day. I cannot support it as an author because I'm not in sufficient command of the language. Hint: Approved_requests_for_new_languages has a section titled Pennsylvania German which is a closely related yet distinct language. Purodha Blissenbach 01:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Who on earth would benefit from a Wikipedia in this German dialect? Not a single person because _every_ single speaker knows High German just as well or better. I don't live there but I bet when they write something down they write it down not in dialect but in High German like just everybody else in Germany. High German has specialised terms for all fields of science, the dialects mostly don't. The High German wikipedia will always be a source of information many times bigger and better then the Pfälzisch one - so the Pfälzisch one will actually be useless. I could go on with a few more points but I think it's enough now. -- Raetius 11:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have had some very similar discussions before: Pfälzisch should be considered a seperate language - and would, if the concepts of Germany, Germans and "the" German language didn't exist. Caesarion 13:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Raetius is wrong. I personally know many people from Palatinate who do not speak the so called "High German" although they moderately understand it on TV etc. when they read (German) books or newspapers loudly, they do so in palatinian. Whenever wording or grammar do not match well enough, the outcome is funny for non-Palatinians. The majority of those people is from rural areas, elderly, hardly computer-literate, neither reading or writing English; so they're unlikely to show up here and vote. -- Purodha Blissenbach 13:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Pfälzisch is not a separate language, just a specific mispronouncing of a German province. Moreover, where should this trend to create new splitted WPs lead? 84.163.38.161 21:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but if still have the dumb conviction that regioanl languages are "mispronunciations" of standard languages, you have absolutely NO business here!!! Dialects are older, much, much older than standard languages, start reading at least something about West Germanic dialects before you ever do one edit to this page again! Caesarion 23:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as it was said, no one there would write down something in that dialect. The only German Dialects which are sometimes used as a written language are (AFAIK) Lower German and Swiss German, which both have already a Wikipedia. Everyone who speaks/understands Pfälzisch can also understand High German and get information at de:. That Pfälzisch Wikipedia would only be a copy of some easy "translated" de: articles to have many language links in the articles in High German. --Steffen Löwe Gera 09:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it wouldn't. Any new Wikipedia is created of its own. The Limburgic Wikipedia is not just an easy translation of the Dutch Wikipedia, neither are the Platt and Alemannic Wikipedias, even though they all know German and write it with more ease than their own vernacular language. Any natural language (and Pfälzisch is a language of its own indeed!) deserves to be written down and cultivated, no matter whether it suffers low prestige or the presence of a standard language. The only thing we should be worried about is whether there are contributors for it, or perhaps if the proposed Wikipedia will not be redundant with an existing project. Caesarion 09:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT well, it's the same old story and dance... if we use such a deletionist criteria, then NO language is needed, apart from US English. Who on earth is going to use a computer without knowing at least basic English? So why on earth would you need a German wiki at all? Still you have it, and it made a wonderful edition, too. I think these guys have the right to speak and write as they wish (no matter whether you call this a language, a dialect, or just a mispronounciation). If they can make a good wiki, then why not? And since it's so easy for Germans to read and speak in Pfälzisch (it's just a different sound, isn't it? ;) then de.wiki will have no problems in importing any interesting content from it. That's if we have to be logical (which is the very least you'd expect from people writing an encyclopedia). --Bertodsera 10:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No need for this. It's not Wikipedia's business to cultivate languages. All Pfälzisch speakers benefit from the German Wikipedia just as much as all the other German speakers do. That should suffice. – Jondor 13:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be WP's business to cultivate languages, but it certainly is Wikipedia's business to help out those who cultivate their languages and give them the opportunity to make their own Wikipedia. Mr. Jondor, all Catalan speakers can use the Spanish Wikipedia very well, but the Catalan Wikipedia was created on the very same day as the Spanish was. So not allowing certain languages their own Wikipedias goes counter to the policy Wikipedia has been leading for five years now. Caesarion 13:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would work with, if such a wikipedia existed (I'm the one who asked for). I'm also a native speaker. My username on the German wikipedia is SPS, btw. -- 84.171.227.43 17:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • SupportI am a native speaker of Palatian, and would help with a palatian Wiki, whether it exists. If the alemannic wikipedia has a "right to exist", I would say a Palatian would have it, too. I would also propose another language code. PAL would be more apposite than PFL. If you aquate the "ä" with the "a", PAL would be the first three letters of te language name in English (Palatinate), and in Palatian itself (Pälzisch). PaelzerBu 13:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just changed the title, cause I had counted six supports, and not just five ;-) --de:Benutzer:SPS 13.02.2006 12:46 (CET)
  • Oppose - Pfälzisch is German. There is one common standard for writing German that covers all regional spoken variants. No other standard than Hochdeutsch is ever used in non-fictional texts (for good reasons, I guess). Ignoring this fact and trying to create Wikipedias for all different spoken "Germans" will very probably lead to a plethora of incomplete, unreliable wikis of inferior quality forever redundant with the mutually intelligible, first-rate standard German WP. Nichts gegen Lokalpatriotismus - but I'd strongly disencourage such a development. Arbeo 17:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arbeo, you're appearing stupidly ignorant to me in you ongoing attempts to descredit the root languages from which current Standard German has been created. Read the Article on the German language, it is an artificial language and thus should not have a Wikipedia would be as much an exaggeraton as your statements - only bending reality to the other end. However good, or complete, any Wikipedia will be, should not be anyones but the contributors business in the first place, and before not a comparable amount of labor has been invested, a 'comparison' to the German WP is impossible and pure perjudice. Your (presumably intentionally) false claim about all non-fictional text were in Standard German is ignoring the tiny bit of more than 1000 years of history before something like Standard was begun to be constructed, driven by political interest, and even evidently false thereafter. The Hanse, a multinational organization comparable to EFTA, EWG, or the current European Union (at least) in its early years, always had Low German, (Plattdüütsch) as their official language. The EU only recently embraced the baltic states and is slowly catching up somewhat to the former Hanse. Read the "German Dialect" section in the German Wikipedia Article on false friends - it lists a handful words that are different betwwen Standard German and some other German language, and at the same time prone to provoke misunderstandings since they're sounding similar to something else. These examples are not even the snowflake on the tip of the iceberg. For one German minority language alone, I could give you a list of several hundreds more 'false friend' words, leave alone the ones not bearing any similarities, leave alone the fact, that there are almost no identical words (sharing both meaning and pronounciation) leave alone quite remarkable differences of grammars. (Compare this to e.g. language pairs like Dutch/Afrikaans, Bokmâl/Nynorsk, Urdu/Hindi - all undoubtedly different languages recognized by international standards on the highest possible level of differentiation, ISO-369-1 - even though Hindi/Urdu are 100% mutually intellegible deviating in less than 2 dozen words) There is a motion of ultra right wing extremists that there should be ony one unified language with which all others must be brought in line (see also German Wikipedia on Luxembourgish, re dräimol Lëtzebuergesch, under Hitlers reign). Arbeo I offer you an examination to publicly prove your claim, that there were only some slight spelling deviations between the various Languages of Germany. Knowing of the huge set of 'false friend's at disposition, I know that you're bound to fail a test, if you're really as ignorant as you appear to be presenting youself here. If you take the challenge and do not fail, however, that would then clearly document that (a) vast differences in additon to spelling exist, and (b) make evident that you are very knowleadgeable about them and purpously misinforming readers here, likely following some hidden personal or politcal agenda. Interested? -- Purodha Blissenbach 16:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose NO NO NO! See Arbeo - what next Berlinerisch? Where is the end, if any minor dialect gets his won Wiki? Kenwilliams 20:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ken, have you ever heard of the slippery slope logical fallacy? This is it! "We can't admit variant X, that'll lead us to accept even smaller scale variant Y in the future". I recommend that you stay away as long as you do not show any knowledge of the linguistical landscape in Germany. The term "German" is very, very unlucky, since the variants spoken by people identifying as German are, however related, definitely not the same language. Saying that a Low Saxon or a Bavarian does not speak "German" as such (that means, either Standard German or another High Franconian dialect) does not mean he isn't German. Palatian is Middle Franconian, it has a different history and a different present state. Its speakers are Germans, their language may be German but it is a different language from the language of the Bundestag and the theatre. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 13:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kenwilliams, if any minor dialect gets his won Wiki? (as you write), this would (a) only be for those language variants having enough supporters who also take on themselves to make an own Wikipedia and thus do not already feel at home in an existing one, i.e. if there is demand, and (b) it was exactly what Wikimedia Foundation set out to do in their mission statement. (c) Who does not like the language might safely ignore it's Wikipedia, and (d) it enriches the world. -- Purodha Blissenbach 01:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ciosek 20:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC) I see more logical arguments for support than to negate. Arguments for opose are quite illogical and some discriminatory - show NPOV love to standardization. w:Germanic substrate hypothesis[reply]
Title actualized once again --de:Benutzer:SPS 22:20, 10 April 2006 (CEST)
  • Oppose It's clearly a dialect, not a language. There's a definite dialect continuum and no "border" for Pfälzerisch. Plus, there's no standard orthography and not even a standardized "Hochpfälzerisch". Why didn't anyone suggest a Wikipedia in Sächsisch yet, or Erzgebirgisch? Or even better: Leipzigerisch (as the Sächsisch of Dresden and Leipzig is not the same). This request is quite silly in my opinion. If we had a Saxon Wikipedia, people from Dresden, Chemnitz and Leipzig would constantly edit between "ni", "net" and "nüsch". I imagine similar things for other dialects of German. —en:User:N-true 5:21, 15 April 2006
  • Support Like someone said, Ripuarian is a dialect of German, and we have that. 22:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I would like to answer to some of the arguments used by the opponents of the proposal: Indeed, Pfälzisch is just a dialect but that is true for Alemannisch, Ripuarisch, Limburgisch and many other Wikipedias. If you read a text in Pfälzisch and know High German, you will surely be able to see a large difference, maybe more than between Czech and Slovakian, Croatian and Serbian, Danish and Norwegian, which are considered separate languages just for political reasons. Also, dialect does not simply mean a mispronunciation or a variation in pronunciation, for German linguists Dialekt means there is a different grammar and some different idioms (in Palatinian there are some taken from French and Yiddish), while a Mundart is more a regional pronunciation of the standard language. Examples for a Mundart are Sächsisch or Hessisch but I would not vote against a Wikipedia in Sächsisch, Hessisch, Fränkisch etc, as there are still enough people to work on the Standard German version, maybe even more because who can write good articles in a dialect will probably be able to do so in Standard German. There are theoretically be hundreds of thousands of people who speak Palatinian actively, are able to use a computer and to write articles, although the language is rarely to hear in towns like Heidelberg because it is considered as a sign for poor education and little knowledge by people who did not learn it in their youth. This process could be turned if a Wikipedia in Palatinian could motivate more people to write in what is actually their mother tongue. In rural areas in the west of the Palatine it is used in shops, offices, schools, restaurants and theatres and Standard German is somehow considered to be foreign and unusual, although all official documents are in Standard German because Palatinian is not considered a minority language like Plattdüütsch or Alsatian in France. If you ever heard German high-ranking politicians like Kurt Beck or Helmut Kohl speak on local event in the home area, you would quickly forget the idea that Pfälzisch is just a variation of High German. There should not be too many problems with orthography, as everybody could write in the dialect of his hometown, all of them are understandable (there is no need to have one Wikipedia in the dialect of Ludwigshafen and another one in that of Kaiserslautern, Mannheim, Heidelberg and so on - as little as there is a need to have several Wikipedias in the dialects of Leipzig, Dresden or Chemnitz;-)), as there is no standard orthography of written Palatinian no form can be considered wrong as long is someone speaks it and writes in it; the main thing is people write in the language they (or at least their parents and grand-parents) speak, which is classical and pure Palatinian. A Wikipedia in a dialect or a local language naturally never has a high scientific level, people write more about regional or every-day topics, articles on elaborate and more complicate topics are mostly direct translations but they never form the main part of the encyclopedia. By the way: There are versions in Manx and Cornish, which are actually extinct languages, Latin, which is not used by anybody as a mother tongue for centuries and even Gothic, in which just a few words are still known to us. As long as some people are interested in writing articles and know the dialect good enough to do so, there are no reasons against setting up a new Wikipedia. de:Benutzer:stefanbw 01:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well said. From experience, I agree, discussing orthography/spelling is futile. This has implications:
      1. You may need quite many redirects for spelling variants. There is a tool under development that can make bulk submissions easy.
      2. You'll have to have a way to decide which spelling is going to be an article name. Pragmatic approach: keep the 1st writer's choice. Chances are, that creates an even distribution and no-one feels set back.
      3. You may need to (or want to) keep text consistent, at least at times. That needs contributors with awareness and knowledge.
      4. Category names are more problematic than article names, since their spelling has to be remembered by writers, who don't want to engage in time consuming look-ups all the time. There is a tool under development for navigating the category tree and select some for insertion.
      5. If there is demand, and/or there are suficiently different orthograpies, you may want, or even need to have, variant spellings of the language user interface. If present, these can be selected in the user preferences. Serbian and Chinese have that already. The group of Ripuarian languages will, too.
    • Good luck! --Purodha Blissenbach 01:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- de:Benutzer:Mundartpoet 21:55, 6 Aug 2006 (CEST)

South Azerbaijan Wikipedia

submitted verification final decision
This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 02:03:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: "South Azerbaijan"! (آذری, azb ISO 639-3)
  • Editing community: BayBak (P)
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: —
  • External links:
  • Ethnologue entry
  • baybak.com
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Number of speakers: About 50,000,000 in total. 40.000.000 South Azerbaijan (East and West Azerbaijan - Iran, Erdebil, Astara, Enzeli, Urmieh, Zenjan, Hemedan, Tehran, Merkezi and all nearby cities), 8,000,000 in Republic of Azerbaijan (useing different script), and few in neighbouring countries/abroad.
  • Locations spoken: South Azerbaijan, Republic of Azerbaijan, Turkey, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Syria
  • Related languages: Turkic languages
If the South Azerbaijan use only arabic script, maybe use both scripts, as the Ladino Wikipedia.--Taichi - (あ！) 05:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with the opposer Taichi.
  • This is the language of the people who have a very long history of civilisation and saing that it is a dialect (from what?) is funny (or even silly) we are not talking about political references (not strong enough to be argued) this is the language of 40,000,000 people who are living in this real world (if not say how). This is not about me or your wishes or hopes.
  • User:BayBak somewhat clarifies the situation on his userpage: he wants to start an Azeri Wikipedia in Arabic script. Due to the shorthand-like nature of the Arabic script, it is impossible to write mutual script convertors for Latin script and Arabic script Azeri, so a seperate Wikipedia does make sense. However, I want to see some more native speakers supporting this initiative before I give my support. Caesarion 13:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is less to do with dialect and more to do with alphabet
  • 2 Support - I have heard that the differences are stronger than only a alphabet, South Azerbaijan has many words from arabic or persian language. D_T_G 19:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 Support Azeri in Iran is now quite different from that spoken in the Republic of Azerbaijan - the difference is more than just a difference in script. The official ISO code is azb. --Chamdarae 18:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral simply because I do not know how different this is from Azerbaijan. However, if integrating two scripts into one Wikipedia (as done in Romani and Ladino) is possible, I would prefer it. The Jade Knight 09:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 5 Support I support this approach. If research came up with too broad a lingustic divide, or that a dual scripted wiki would technically not be feasible for the next years, then I support creating a separate one. -- Purodha Blissenbach 11:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 Oppose Oppose Initially I thought of technical difficulties involving the set up of bi-alphabet Wikipedia, but I am convinced that the creation of a new Wikipedia just because of different script does not serve any purpose. Kurdish Wikipedia has already made use of Arabic and Latin scripts for three different Kurdish accents.
The Kurdish wikipedia is actually the Kurmanji language. I understand that the conversion from Latin to Arab scripts is not as easy as we are led to believe .. GerardM 21:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of few bennefits for single bi-alphabet Azerbaycani Wikipedia :
  1. Better use of resources.(One Wikipedia for one language . )
  2. Allowing the users of both scripts to co-operate in developments of articles
  3. Mutual learning of alternative scripts.
  4. Following successful example of other Wikipedias such as Kurdish Kurdish, using Arabic and Latin scripts already.
I suggeste the use of bothe alphabets in one Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Mehrdad (n)


  • 4 Oppose Oppose (Reluctantly) I wanted to be neutral, but decided that it does not really serve any purpose. The difference, other than the script, is at the dialect level and it is in the spoken language. There is no official Azerbaijani use in Iran, as far as I know, and the language used in South Azerbaijani press and the literature is standard Azerbaijani. Literature sometimes do have local influences though, but it is the case with any language and in the Azerbaijan Republic too. Furthermore, Azerbaijani Wikipedia itself needs serious improvement and diverting the attention of a very limited number of native Azerbaijani speaking users will create two almost useless Wikipedias. My suggestion is that the Ladino Wikipedia example is suitable here and we should modify Azerbaijani Wikipedia to include articles in both scripts. --TimBits 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 Oppose I am also suggesting to modify the current Azerbaijani Wikipedia so that it supports both scripts. As a native Azerbaijani language speaker, besides knowing that what we are talking about here is the same language except the scripts used in Iran and Azerbaijan Republic, the reasons for doing so are the same as the reasons provided by User:Mehrdad and User:TimBits above. --Sed 14:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 Oppose I support idea of having two scripts in already existing Azerbaijani Wikipedia. I know old people in Azerbaijan who still be able to read Azerbaijani in Arabic script which been used and taught untill 1923. Admittedly, many people around the world are familiar with Latin script currently used in Azerbaijan, including South Azerbaijanis. The only barrier is a difference in dialects. This barrier seems very weak, while there're many South Azerbaijanis living and studying in North Azerbaijan and vice versa. Alphabet and Language in Transition issue of Azerbaijan International magazine covers articles regarding Arabic/Latin scripts. We need join our forces to build powerful Azerbaijani Wikipedia. --Rustam 05:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with the opposers
  • Note: I am very interested to know the level of the knowledge of opposers about South Azerbaijani Language. They do suggest something with no meaning. They do not have enough information. They are not able to understand the differences between a language and a dialect. Also they can not understand the differences between tow scripts.Azeri language is spoken by almost 40,000,000 people (we have wiki for languages with less than 10 million speakers). Azeri language is going to be recognised as the second official language of nowadays Iran on 2009. So this is proven by the authority that has banned it for years. If you do support banning a language, do it and be as clearly as you can. As I have mentioned before, I do not want to start any political argument (or discussion) on this page, but I am sure about the truth and need of my request. It is needed because we will have the right to use and improve our own language in near future. Please do not get upset of recognising an alive language (even if you do not like it). Reality is not what we wish! It is what it is. Many thanks to supporters. BayBak --Baybak 21:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear BayBak , If there was no Azeri Wikipedia I could understand your frustration, but there is one in Latin script, ad currently we (Sys Admins of Azerbaijani Wikipedia) are discussing the work involved for inclusion development of Azeri with Arabic script[4]. Having Visited and impressed by the site you have developed single handed, wish you can help us develop the Azeri Wikipedia (Arabic Script). I am native speaker of Azeri, and familiar with both scripts, I would be more than happy to discuss your proposals further. sagolun . Mehrdad 03:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • سایقیلی مهرداد بَی، سیزون بو ایستک گرچک بیر ایستک اُلا بولمز چونکی (I wrote it to show the difference between 2 scripts) Dear Mehrdad, you are suggesting that we may have completely different scripts in one wiki! If this is the case, please tell me about benefits of that. You do not realise that the people who are able to read, write and understand these 2 scripts (like your self) are less than %5 (majority of South Aeries are not able/not willing to read/write Azeri by crylic script which is introduced to the North Azeries by Russian in 1980s. Before that we had same scripts, borders and actually everything), also we have people who do not want to use crylic /latin, they prefer to use their own scripts (improved and changed from sumerian - source for Azeri language) like myself. The main fact is that our language is banned in nowadays Iran, and because we are not happy of it and fighting for independence, so having everything written in our language by using our script is essential. Please do accept that having one wiki in 2 scripts has no use for this situation. BayBak 15:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear BayBak. Your efforts are really appreciated and we need contibutors like you in Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Currently we do not have too many users who can write in Azerbaijani with Arabic script. And by the way, there is no Azerbaijani Wikipedia in cryllic script, but this raises a question. There are many Azerbaijanis, especially older generation, who can write in cryllic but not in the current latin script. Then we might as well have a cryllic Azerbaijani Wikipedia too. One might say, yes why not. But the real question is that who will maintain 3 wikipedias in one single language? So, please come and join Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Oh, and I realized your page, it is a great work I should say, and you have the name birolmali.com- I just couldn't help but realize the irony and paradox of this and your position here. Thank you. --TimBits 16:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear TimBits, I personally appreciate people, their beliefs and their language. But our problem lies here: We do not want/we can not force at least 30,000,000 to change their writing system which they are familiar with for ages. Also I have to point that this is a bit early to have this AZB wiki because of not having enough writers and admins, but having said that in near future and after introducing the wiki to my people in South Azerbaijan, there will be good activity started on that wiki. I strongly believe there is no use of having one wiki with mixed scripts. Literate people of South Azerbaijan can not follow Azeri written in either Crylic or Latin scripts. You will see it easily in our books, papers, web sites and all other written materials those are being produced every day in S-Azerbaijan. Please take time to research and read about our past before suggesting any thing. --Baybak 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know about our past and that's why I am suggesting that we should work together to produce a useful wiki page. I do not beleive that a bi-script page is any less useful than a single script one. I do not have any reason to beleive it. And you still haven't responded wthether you want to be a part of this project or not. Whatever your decision is, I respect it. --TimBits 22:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear TimBits Thanks for asking, this is kind of you, but I am sure that I will continue to build an independent wiki for South Azeri (AZB). I will continue as I am doing now (reading, writing and thinking in my own language). I wish you a successful life.BayBak یاشاسین آذربایجان --Baybak 03:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Differences are not solely in script. There are more people literate in Southern Azerbaijani than in Northern Azerbaijani. Furthermore, script is never only script the language has a history of a culture language written in Arabic script for centuries. Behemoth 01:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 Oppose - My native language is Azarbaijani (South) But I think that contribution by Latin Alphabet is better to both Azarbayjanies, because this language is same in north and south and only alphabets are different. Kurdish languages are differenet in root but they keep all kurdish languages in one wiki project. I think that seperation of south and north wikies is suspended idea . In common project South Azarbayjanies may be know better Latin alphabets and in another hand some of Azarbaijani wiki administrator are from South then they can work better in one project instead of two seperate projects.I request from az.wikipedia adminstraters for changig main page as Kurdish wiki for supporting both alphabets. یاشاسین گونی --Yoldas 19:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Yoldas ; Why you did ignor all the comments and explanations above and came up with the word: suspended! please be more careful in choosing your words. Be aware of that we are talking about the language of more than 30,000,000 people who do not use Latin alphabet at all! The people those have their own language banned!. Now how and why you want to intagrate these 2 different scripts in one wiki and make the new script of 8,000,000 (that is being used since 1990s)? How can you close your eyes on the majority of Azerbaijanies and their respectfull beliefs? Please, as I have mentioned above, we must be realistic as we can and do not panik of hearing new voices that comes from the new generation of South Azerbaijan. South will keep its Script together with its past and future. We have not changed our script for centuries (actually it belongs to us as well as is to Arabs and Persians), so do not even think we will change it. Speaking on my behalf, this is going to be tough but reality is the winner of history. We are looking beyond these, so far, victory. Also be patient and read/understand more about where you belong to.یاشاسین گونی ایله قوزِی BayBak --Baybak 22:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Dear BayBak , No one is asking or encouraging to change no ones script. What our friend Yoldas is pointing out is the fact that this arrangement of two script in one Wikipedia would bring more consorted efforts by users and administrators of the both scripts, and would make each side familiar with the other alphabet. I am very glad to let you know that since the suggestion for dual aphabetical Azerbaijani Wikipedia has been discussed, two of active users, one being an admin, have asked me for resources to learn the South Azerbaijani script. This is not only encouraging, I would say this is exciting. Mehrdad 02:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Yoldas , The work for the inclusion of the South Azerbaijani titles in the main page of Azeri Wikipedia has been started, and would love to hear users comments on that. http://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azeri
We all need to help to set the background work for the bidirectional editing, templates, messages and more. Yoldash thanks for participating in this talk, and would love to meet you and BayBak in Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Mehrdad 02:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I just read this discussion (for the second time really after some days) ... what I can say is: I (personally ... so this is pure POV) don't like the way things are brought up here. Considering that we should only care about linguistical matters (NPOV) and not political matters here I would very kindly ask to reflect for a moment and ask yourself: are you linguistically prepared to answer these question? I must admit: I am not, even if I seem to recall that there is more than just a script difference. Well, I will look into this - and I don't know how long I will take to do so. But: we must remain impartial = NPOV please when it comes to North/South questions ... these tend to become political in mind even if we try not to be political (what a sentence ...). Please take a break from this discussion. Thank you! --Sabine 20:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 Support Strongly Support Why can't you people just let some 25 million people have their own wikipedia? All bi-alphabet wikipedias always end up having most articles in one script and not the other. For example, check out Kurdish Wikipedia. I can't believe people are supporting things like Zeelandic which are just dialects of other languages using the SAME ALPHABET but not for dialects that use different alphabets.--69.174.252.80 01:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Azerbaijani Wikipedia is already bi-alphabet, so in fact this request has already been obviated. As there are potentially more native Azerbaijani speakers using Arabic alphabet than Latin, in the long term I would predict that Azerbaijani Wikipedia will be the most successful of the bi-script wikis and can be a good example for other such projects. As for the supposed failure of other bi-script wikis, it certainly can not be a reason that would prevent commited editors from working on this project. --TimBits 02:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I too hope this will be more successful bi-script Wikipedia. I hope it will be successful bi-script unlike the other bi-script wikipedias. I hope they get more good helpful users like BayBak in making the Arabic Script version "catch up". I think the question of Cyrillic script Azerbaijani is to use the same tool they have at Serbian, but I don't think it's possible to do the same with Latin scripts and Arabic. Their too different.--69.174.252.80 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 Oppose get dual script working. It will be harder than Cyrillic/Latin but is feasible. I'm willing to work on this — interested parties should contact me. It will probably be easiest to do Latin->Arabic because of the vowel problem, cf. this which I have been working on. - FrancisTyers 19:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: Political: I have a hard time understanding these (intentionally foggy, to me) political arguments. Is it true that speaking Azeri in Iran is currently prohibited, and that this may be lifted in 2009, if … ? - and an azb WP would support this likely more than an All-Azerbaijani Wikipedia which would rather help raise fears in politicians of Iran, of a region wanting to separate from Iran and form an Azerbaidjan-Reunited state? Please make sure that answers to this question come from independant/international sources only that are not potential subjects to political harrasment!
    Technical: When suggesting to make a triple-scripted WP, I mean that you can write something in one script, alter your user prefrences, and subsequently have everything shown in another script, including what you previously wrote. (As you have it with traditional/simplified Han Chinese, e.g.) While this seems not readily available for az yet, if it can be expected in a reasonable time, I'd suggest not to have a separate WP based on the argument of script alone. If such conversion needs dictionary assistance, have a look at Ultimate Wiktionary+WktionaryZ. --Purodha Blissenbach 11:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 Oppose seperation. Arabic and latin alphabets are aligned in the wrong sides of the screen and hence arent very compatible. It is unlikely for a person used to the arabic script to understand latin alphabet and vice versa. Simmilar seperation should be observed on other languages. Alternatively, it can all be merged to Turkish... --Cat out 18:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I understand this is actualy a political nom. I have been informed that two diferent scripts can work fine and since the comunity on az. wiki uses both scripts I hereby oppose the suggestion. In order to change my vote I need reasons that has nothing to do with politics. --Cat out 19:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 Support تام دستک

آذربایجاندا و خصوصی ایله گونیده دیلیمیزه چوخلو ایجحاف اولونور. بونو دوردورماق اوچون اولدوغو ایمکانلاری ایشه آیمامیز گرکلیدیر. عرب آدلانان الیفبانی دستکلییرم --Tebriz 09:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 11 Support I don't understand people that don't want new wikipedias...I supported it 'cos, if there are peole that spoke it, why they can't have his own wikipedia?--Norrin_strange
  • 12 Support This is a language spoken by many in a developing part of the world. It is important that people from this sort of area have access to knowledge freely, which may not be possible for them with the current Azerbaijani wikipedia. mm_pie 20:14 3 September 2006 (GMT)
Azerbaijani language Wikipedia, as explained below, exactly aims to do that. There are dedicated Iranian Azerbaijani users who help us achieving our goal of creating the perfect bi-script wiki. On the other hand, so far, there has not been a promise to contibute by anyone to this current request, other than the user who brought up the proposal. I again request that everyone, before making a decision, to take into consideration the fact that the Azerbaijani Wikipedia is already dual-script and this has pretty much obviated the current request. Thank you. --TimBits 19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems some of our firiends here are not aware that Azerbaijani Wikipedia in two scripts already has established and up and running. The Arabic script has been integrated into the initially latin based Wikipedia:
  1. RtL Button tools Many features in the "edith" pages ease the use of Right-to-Left. Arabic script.
  1. List of all Arabic characters,above the Copy Right message, allows edithing in Arabic scripts for those who do not have Arabic keybord.
  1. Most of system messages are translitrated to Arabic script, and the rest are in the process of being translated.
The articles using Arabic alphabet are in increase, and those interested can participate to bring them to be in the same footing with the latin ones.
I invite all interested users to give a visit to http://az.wikipedia.org .
Mehrdad 18:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 Oppose Oppose it is one language in North- and South-Azerbaijan --Juhan 19:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


* Dear Mehrdad , why are you keep asking people to accept 2in1 wiki? What will happen to both parts of Azerbaijan after 10 years? Is it possible to have scripts changed again (as it has happend 4 times in the Northern part and once in South)?. If 1 script is changed by then, what will be your response? Will you fight them back? I understand that you work hard to keep your 2in1 wiki seems working, but this is a fact that 1 wiki for 1 script is the right thing to do. Please do not push/force, advertise/encourage people to accept your idea. At the end, please tell me of the benefits of your 2in1 wiki and the goals you achived by now. BayBak

Punjabi Shahmukhi Wikipedia

submitted verification final decision
This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 22:02:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Punjabi (gurumukhi is it's origin[invented])
  • Editing community: Sikh (P)
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: -
  • External links:
    —
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Number of speakers: 300 million
  • Locations spoken: United Punjab

A wiki for Punjabi already exists, however this is predominantly in the en:Gurmukhi script. Can we have a separate Wikipedia for the Arabic script? This enables easy interwiki linking and stops the current wiki from getting cluttered with multiple scripts. Sukh 00:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question:I'm not entirely sure I agree with this request. Also, why should Gurmukhi get the pa: domain while Shahmukhi gets the pa-pk: domain??
Answer:Locale data on the CLDR [5] lists only Gurmukhi for pa. Unfortunately , the Pakistan government does not support Punjabi and so it has had no official push in the Shahmukhi (arabic) script. The Indian state of Punjab uses it as an official language in the Gurmukhi script.
There is no greater reason to have Gurmukhi under 'pa' other than it's already in use there, with a partially translated interface. Indeed, more people speak Punjabi in Pakistan than in India (although few are literate in the language in Pakistan, no matter what script because Urdu is the official language). Pakistan has made it its aim to exterminate all of the native languages in the country in favour of Urdu, which incidentally is not native to the country :) Sukh 17:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can the scripts be converted automatically, similar to what's done on sr and zh? Speakhits 21:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: No, they can't, since the Arabic script is very shorthand-like and leaves all vowels out. Superficially, Devanagari script has a similar approach but it is better suited for the Indian languages than Arabic script is. They're pretty incompatible. Caesarion 09:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Caesarion is correct. Indic abugidas (like Gurmukhi, Devanagari) can be converted to one another (Devanagari to Gurmukhi and back without loss of information), but not so easily to Arabic script. In actual fact, converting from Gurmukhi to Shahmukhi may not be too difficult, but doing it the other way round would cause problems. There is ways of doing it using dictionary look-ups I suppose, but no reliable method exists at the moment.
I think crucially, there is not a one-to-one mapping of characters and in several circumstances it would be impossible to detect which character to use without analysing the context (in terms of the word) it is used in. Sukh 17:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I think it's quite unfair to relegate it to pa-PK. Both Shahmukhi and Gurmukhi are scripts used by millions and millions of Punjabi people. Neither is less important. --Node ue 06:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly wish that were the case. But Punjabi is neither encouraged or extensively used in text form in Pakistan (be it Shahmukhi, Gurmukhi or Latin). I suppose a different code could be "pa-arab" or something similar? Maybe Gurmukhi could move to "pa-guru" aswell? Sukh 21:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I support in principle as I know a number of Punjabi people, but there are so few contributors as it is, that I suggest waiting until a technical solution is developed. There are workings in place like Wikidata that could solve the multiple script problem. I don't see the value in splitting a project with so few contributors, though if you could recruit 30 or so contributors I'd be listening. I recommend just getting by in the meantime with articles in both scripts on the same wiki for now. And no, I haven't had any luck myself so far encouraging those people I know to contribute. - Taxman 15:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately there will be no reliable automatic transliteration that is possible. However, if there is a reliable mechanism for dual scripts in the Wikis, then that's definately a plus - although I'm unsure about the consequences of interwiki linking.
I'm against the idea of waiting for enough people to contribute. There is one user in particular who wishes to start writing Shahmukhi articles and that should be enough. It'll always be more hassle to transfer at a later date. Sukh 21:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't assuming automatic transliteration, just good facilities for multiple scripts, and that is beeing worked on. Having two scripts on the same language isn't that big a problem, just set up a convention to link to the other version of the article, either through a link in the same spot on every article or use a template or a mediawiki message. The right to left and left to right sounds like more of a problem, try filing bug report for that. - Taxman 14:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose; the Punjabi Wikipedia barely has over 40 articles—what are the odds that this would do any better, if even as well? I recommend that articles written in Shahmukhi be included in the Punjabi Wikipedia, if at all possible (we deal with dialects in other Wikipedias, like Normand and Cornish, and the Romani Wikipedia even uses dual orthographies—perhaps it could be used as a model for Punjabi). The Jade Knight 09:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems with having it on the same Wiki, because the software does not provide adequate facilities for both scripts. For example, unless the user signs up and changes their preferences, page layout will still be left-to-right for Arabic readers. Also, there is a complication in terms of interwiki linking - how can you specify two script translations for articles in one wiki? Finally, there is the fact that we will end up with two communities of contributors who will be very unlikely to be able to communicate with each other, unless they resort to romanisation (wow, script number three) or English. Personally I think the excuse of there only being forty articles has nothing to do with the matter. It's a language spoken by nearly 100 million people... as more of them get online you'll get more contributors. Sukh 18:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by two script translations for articles in one wiki. If you mean interwiki linking from another wikipedia, just do [[pa:Shahmukhi title]] and [[pa:Gurmucki title]]. And two communities of editors that both speak the same language is no worse to be on the same project than it is for them to be on separate projects and not communicate at all. And the short answer being if you can get more contributors, you'd get a ton of support votes. I and many others don't see the value of creating projects with few contributors. - Taxman 14:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose: Even if scripts can't be automaticly transliterated, it is still better to find a solution along the lines of zh and sh Wikipedia. Dual-script WPs can be done. --Mkill 12:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I as a speaker of Punjabi in Pakistan as a mother tongue strongly recommend that a Punjabi wikipedia in arabic script should be started. Much of its literature has been created here. And it would be unjust not to allow this.

Khalid Mahmood 16 September 2007

Wikiquote in french

Comments

  • There is currently no community. I'll be glad to support such an attempt to rebuild the french wikiquote, but only if you can find at least ten reliable and established Wikimedians/Wikipedians ready to invest themselves to help you with the project. Solensean ᛁᛉᛁ 01:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus que 8 on est deux ;) Greudin
No :) You're alone..Solensean ᛁᛉᛁ 13:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted quotes in "Gascon", and I got their from my neighbors. Anyone are gotten from any book, and are quotes used in their family when they were young. How can I must write the source of these quotes?J'avais écris toutes les citations de la page en "Gascon", que j'avais eu grace à mes voisins. AUCUNE n'étaient sortie d'un quelconque livre; elles étaient utilisée dans leur famille, quand ils étaient jeunes, et que cette langue se parlait encore courrement dans la campagne. Comment indiquer la source de ces citations ? Lolo 32ᛁ 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Enregistre toi, ça a bcp plus de poids ! Greudin
« Wikicitations » est une bonne idée d'intitulé. L'emploi d'un nouveau titre permettrait de symboliser le changement par rapport à la précédente version. Teofilo 12:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • I support a new fr.wikquote for old texts in the public domain only. I oppose the new rules that allow quotes from films and contemporary authors, because I believe this clashes the French copyright law. See Talk:Wikiquote FR. Je suis pour la réouverture d'un Wikiquote francophone seulement pour les textes anciens tombés dans le domaine public. Je suis opposé aux nouvelles règles qui incitent à citer des films et des auteurs contemporains, parce que je pense que cela n'est pas compatible avec les lois françaises sur les droits d'auteurs. Voir Talk:Wikiquote FR Teofilo 12:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bit franco-centred, isn't it? Greudin
Though it is the same reason why the fr.wikiquote was closed in the first place, because of those French(France) copyright laws. 132.204.207.108 12:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Greudin says, French is spoken internationally. Why not base the rules on Canadian, Belgian or Swiss law? All this is irrelevant as the servers are in the US so will be governed by US law. US law permits such quotation. --Oldak Quill 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J'ai perdu sans préavis mes deux pages utilisateurs qui fourmillaient de citations tout à fait légales. Je pense, avant de créer quoique ce soit, qu'il faudrait réactiver cette partie de l'ancienne version quelques semaines et nous laisser recouvrer notre travail initial. Signé QuoiNonne aka 82.224.88.52 17:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people willing to involve themselves in the project

I'd like to see a list of people willing to involve themselves in a new fr.wikiquote. Write your name below. Solensean ᛁᛉᛁ 21:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Requests for new languages/cg

Hiligaynon Wikipedia (13 support, 1 oppose)

Template:New-language-template

Support:

24.4.106.220 (N), 01:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hiligaynon Test Wikipedia can now be found Here alongside the other Incubation Wikipedias.
The Hiligaynon Test Wikipedia can now be found Here alongside the other Incubation Wikipedias.

Oppose:

Question: If native speakers show up and prove willingness to take responsibility for the implementation of this project will you withdraw your current opposition?--Harvzsf 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If more than five dedicated native speakers show up, and request this Wiki with the intention of building an encyclopaedia then sure I'd withdraw my opposition. We don't need another Tajik Wikipedia, with no good articles and no native speakers to improve it. - FrancisTyers 16:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the Norman Wikipedia has only 2 native speakers (one at start) and is now nearing 1,000 articles. A successful test wikipedia is a much better sign than counting the number of native speakers. That said, I'm Weak Oppose against anything that does not have a test Wikipedia with at LEAST 25 articles. The Jade Knight 05:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to further add that Tajik Wikipedia does have a dedicated native speaker now; in fact, the number of articles over there has slowly grown from 31 to 81. --Jose77 10:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Suggestion to help this proposal: since there are anonymous IPs who list themselves as native speakers who are willing to the growth of the Hiligaynon Wikipedia, it is highly recommended that these people register as to make their votes count. Or if they have an account on an existing Wikimedia project (i.e. Wikipedia), they can list that too! --Sky Harbor 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, the Hiligaynon Test Wikipedia can now be found Here alongside the other Incubation Wikipedias.
--Jose77 22:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaldon-Siberian (46 support, 29 oppose)

ALL VOTES FROM NEW/ANONYMOUS USERS WILL BE DELETED. Could someone have a look over and delete the new user/anonym votes? Anyone tallying this up should ignore them. (see under the Chaldon section orange bar here for relevant discussion) 10:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:New-language-template

Member of the Commonwealth of East-Slavonic Test wikipedias http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Sodruzhestvo-sib


Support

this even hardly could be called dialect. just unpopular slang of several people. Elk Salmon 17:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already 1200 --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This language is an interesting thing to learn and to try speaking it is even more interesting.Ghzhnfh 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Every language should have the ground to protect and develop itself whether it's documented or not. -- 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Asmen
  • Support - Anclation
  • Support - I do not pass judgement on the status of this language. Whether or not it is real doesn't concern me. What does, is that they have hundreds of articles already, and they are dedicated to building a Wikipedia. --Node ue 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Ethnologue.com is the reference about if this language exists, is a lie about the 5-10 millions, exists languages with few speakers (hundreds or dozens) and has a ISO code. I suspect about the support of the IP annonymous, because only Yaroslav is the unique registered user. --Taichi - (あ！) 22:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Requests to ethnologue.com and ISO today were made by our group --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sib but not slb --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just please type "Chaldon Siberia" in Google, and we can show a lot of people how know the language, and promote it. All the three east-slavonic wikis (russian, ukrainian, belorussian) have articles about the language --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose -- sib is the ISO 639 code for the Sebob language spoken in Kenyah, classified as a living language in Ethnologue and accepted in the ISO 639 standard. Please stop inventing codes like this. First check ISO 639 resources. If there's no code in ISO 639, don't assign your own code (all 2or 3 letter codes are reserved for exclusive assignment in ISO 639). For now the only viable code will be based on the code for Russian, i.e. as a variant of Russian: ru-siberian, or using the RFC 3066 recommadned notation for languages without codes: (e.g. x-siberian-chaldon). I really urge you to contact the Russian standard organism to ask for assistance if you want a code in ISO 639. And also, try to find accurate (academic) references about this language, because there's for now no evidence that it is really different from Russian, and no evidence that it is even classified in the East Slavonic language family! And also there's no evidence from other native people in this area (other areas outside Russia do use recognized East Slavonic languages but there may be legends about the Siberian variant that they have never actually heard!).
Academic refrences about differences between siberian dialects and official russian will be enough or not? And what is about other native people? 10 of them went here for vote. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that if this is a reconstructed language, its base is still the modern Russian, and the variant is based on Old Slavonic, so the code to use should reflect this: the only viable code for now is ru- followed by the ISO 639 code chu assigned for Old Church Slavonic (don't use the two letter code there because it's reserved for ISO 3166 country codes). This would give the final code ru-chu.
The people in other countries that are supporting the project won't accept to use Russian as the base for this reconstruction, although they may support the idea of reintroducing features from the Old Slavonic language. They would then create a variant that would be different from the variant being built in the far Siberia, and so they would create things like uk-chu in Ukrainia or ge-chu in Georgia, which will remain unofficial dialects until they get a true population. For now, those theoric constructions are NOT living languages. Verdy P 16:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in real dialects of the Chaldons and in literary form in vlogota.com and other sites beyond LJ. Do you want to say that Chaldons do not exist or that volgota.com do not exist?--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that http://samir74.livejournal.com, http://volgota.com/ and User:Yaroslav Zolotaryov are same person. Please avoid self-references. It's still original research.
According to ru:Сибирский язык (still not NPOV): Chaldon-Siberian is project of constructed language ... Created in 2005. (Сиби́рский язы́к — проект искусственного языка, создаваемого на базе восточнославянских диалектов Сибири, в основном старожильческих говоров XIX века, с участием тюркских, монгольских и арабских заимствований. Возник в 2005.). I don't know how much common it has with language of Chaldons. Other linguists could answer this question. Please give any credible references.
EugeneZelenko 03:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Chaldon dialect exists: http://www.yandex.ru/yandsearch?rpt=rad&text=%F1%E8%E1%E8%F0%F1%EA%E8%E9+%F1%F2%E0%F0%EE%E6%E8%EB%FC%F7%E5%F1%EA%E8%E9+%E3%EE%E2%EE%F0
2. The literary form exists: http://www.yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%F1%E8%E1%E8%F0%F1%EA%E8%E9+%FF%E7%FB%EA&stype=www
3. Russian wiki lies for political reasons, hating any language except russian for siberian slavonians. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to http://uk.wikipedia.org/: "Сибірська мова — літературна мова, створена у 2005 році на основі східнослов'янських діалектів Сибіру, здебільшого старожитецьких говірок XIX сторіччя" (Siberian language is literary language based on dialects of Siberia", but russians they themselves consider their article not NPOV. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't lie for political reasons too. And please don't talk about politics here. According to be:Сыбірская мова it's still праект штучнай мовы (project of constructed language). From uk: article (from beginning to 29 січня 2006 version, excluding last days editing) напівштучна мова (half-constructed, as far a I understand Ukrainian). Again, where are references to external sources? --EugeneZelenko 13:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What lie, when russian wiki tried to write there "this is a project which is against russian state", and only protests of siberian and belorussian democrats stopped to do this? The history is available, and anybody can see this. The belorussian version just translates russian one. http://volgota.com, http://inache.net and other sites that promote - is it enough for external sources? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, moved to non-natural, though it is natural, and there is about 20 voices in support yet --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please move the request to Requests for new languages/Non-natural, because this is an artificial language. --Taichi - (あ！) 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not, but it is possible to create the wiki if it will be considered artificial? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really, we want to restore the ancient dialect of 17-18 centuries, and to make it modern language. I do not know how it can be classified, as natural or non-natural, but there are many enthusiasts of this project. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for as long as Yaroslav doesn't provide information from independent, neutral sources that indicates that this is a distinct and existing language (I can't find any at present). ARBE0 12:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I know it is hard to find and independent, neutral source in such topic - all russian sources denies the language with great energy, and all tha siberian separatists and some kazakhstan and ukrainian sources support it with the same energy. Well, if I will work with the wiki as if it would be an artificial language (request is already made), and it will be five or more contributors from native siberians or not, who will write in such wiki, will you oppose then? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, imagine, they write here "the whole language is invented by Yaroslav". What word, I wonder? "Odnako" or maybe "shanezhka" or maybe "basko"?))) And in their wiki they write "invented by Yaroslav to destroy Russia". Well, if they themselves want Russia to be destroyed, we shall destroy Russia. Long live Great Novgorod and free Siberia! --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have some time now. Links about the siberian language NOT FROM LJ or Volgota.com:
http://e-novosti.info/forumo/viewtopic.php?t=1819 (discussion about necessary of tukr words are they allowed or not)
Kazakhstan article http://www.dialog.kz/site.php?lan=russian&id=76&pub=1032 (positive)
Ukrainian article http://lab.org.ua/article/727/ (positive)
Latvian forum http://www.evangelie.ru/forum/archive/t-14778-p-2.html (positive reaction)
Ukrainian forums http://forum.sevastopol.info/viewtopic.php?p=134921&sid=e1bfb2dad69ccbe92f653f8e69a61352
http://www.novy.tv/ru/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20068&sid=6dfe6e7e13df8be971f34aa81aa365c5
(positive reaction, people reciting verses in siberian)
Russian forum http://www.disenteria.ru/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=7492&s= (some people from Siberia testify that they know this words and grammar)
Moscow forum http://forum.msk.ru/wap/news.wml?id=2200 (negative reaction, but the language considered natural)
All this sources do not belong to me, but all of them consider the language natural (the lie about it's non-naturality was completely made by russian nationalists), and all of them consider that the language is based on real dialects of old siberian people.
There are some sources not from the Internet, but perhaps nobody here read russian magazines.

--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think they are false? IP are from all the world, and they provide their emails. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI 'svidomy' translates from Ukrainian as 'conscious'; 'conscientious', "сознательный" by Russian. Some bad people called 'ruspats' using it for offending Ukrainians. Амиго, приезжай в Украину, подарю тебе атлас мира, чтобы ты смог ощутить разницу между Украиной и Сибирью. Кстати, ты хоть там хоть там бывал? -- --Dmitry Petuk 11:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[User:Fanex|Dmitry Petuk][reply]
Amigo my wife is from Rivne (where I lived for three years) and right now I am writing from Feodosiya. However the point is not between Ukraine and Siberia, the point is: ARE YOU GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN CHALDON-SIBERIAN WIKIPEDIA? and ARE YOU NATIVE OF SIBERIA?. Because so far I am yet to see a Siberian IP in the list. So are you trying to use your conscience to prove that you are capable of starting a pointless wiki, because in such a case it really is a waste of conscience. BTW, thanks for the world atlas, but I have one already, although I must say when one sees Siberia in full he really could not take not to notice how small and near does Ukraine appear to its western borders ;). Kuban Cossack
In fact [6]. Bottom phrase is Считаю, что пост имеет прямое отношение к теме сообщества, так как сибирский язык в настоящее время не признается официально в России, но официально признается на многих сайтах украинского Интернета.
I feel that the post has direct relation to our community because the sibirian language is officialy unrecognised in Russia but is officialy recognised on many Ukrainian sites. That appears to be the only reason and it is fully anecdotical. Kuban Cossack
So do you believe that ukrainians have no rights to vote in wikipedia? Are the votes false because part of them are ukrainians?:-) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And how many articles are going to be written in that language? Will those Ukrainians write them? Or will it be an empty encyclopedia? Also it is true that Ukrainians, particulary the IP adresses of those that voted do not originate from Sibirea. So if the request was put up by native Siberian people then I would have understood the handful of ehthusiasts argument, and supported them, but this I am sorry is nothing but a political stunt and a sham, which IMO is deragotory in such a sense.
Well perhaps if it does succeed, I wonder how long will it be before there would wikis in Surzhik, Trasyanka, our Kuban balachka or even UDAFF.net dialogue (because you can't really call that a language.)--Kuban Cossack
Really we need seven more:

1. Great Novgorod language wikipedia.

2. Pomor language wikipedia.

3. Don Balachka wikipedia

4. Tver language wikipedia

5. Pskov language wikipedia.

6. Great Vladimir language wikipedia.

7. Smolensk language wikipedia.

But siberian language is the most developed and have very large community (1200 articles made in 1,5 months)--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki is tested now, and it is not empty. Why do you think it is relevant to the vote to be from Siberia or not? And to make Kuban balachka a full language and write wikipedia on it seems for me a good idea)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is the whole point, balachka is not a full language because its is a hybrid between Russian and 18th century Ukrainian. lso as it has no script or grammar and as it varies with locations (one stanitsa will pronounce the Гs as Hs, another as Gs or some will muffle them altogether) and generations (compare to how some old Cossacks speak and how some young children talk - BIG difference) so what is going to define it? Same with Surzhik and trasianka and even udaff... It would be nothing but a waste of time, as there is no printed literature in balachka let alone written sources. Moreover if official academies of Sciences from various states decree it as a dialect of Russian how are you going to make it a separate language? It is as rediculous as having different English wikis, and not American and British, but English and Scottish would be the comparison. Finally it is relevant that none of the votes originate from Siberia as it puts suspicion on just how widespread the project will become. Finally the fact that it has no international language code as opposed to tongues that are right now EXTINCT, I see very little prospect for it, and view this as nothing but a Livejournal.com April Fools joke. Kuban Cossack
But if the balachka had its own tradition, it would be a language. And we are just trying to make this tradition for siberian language, which has many cossack words too, because old siberians was some kind of mixture from cossacks, pomors, and aborigens. International language code can be achieved, and we work at this. About 10 of the voters were from Siberia, so your argument is irrelevant. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not tradition, this is a language that is unrecognised and has no grammatical or linguistic structure. That is what is important. As for votes here we go:
  1. fanex, IP - Cherkassy, Ukraine
  2. vaenn, IP - Dnebrovsky, Dnepropetrovsk Oblast - Ukraine
  3. Alexei, IP - Ukraine
  4. Alex Yesod, IP - Moscow
  5. Helgi Litvin, IP - Germany.
  6. Siarhiej Bałachonaŭ IP - Gomel
  7. Oleg Dudnyk IP - Kiev, Ukraine
  8. rutopist IP - St. Petersburg
  9. Roman Baiduk IP - Kiev (actually some of the IPs look so similar in numbers that it makes me want to really wonder how many real users there are...)
  10. Aleksej Tajlakov IP - Tomsk (1st Siberian author)
  11. Pavel Levushkan IP - Latvia
  12. Steel Archer IP - Ukraine
So ONE native Siberian editor. Rydel is Belarusian, Nefis whose user page is deleted [7]. Kivan, whose strong nationalistic russophobia is not a valid reason for a wikipedia as it will immediately question the future neutrality. So where are your Siberian voters? Finally why is it 33 when I count 16 supporters, of which only one is confirmed Siberian. Kuban Cossack
Nickitos, Baznica, Kivan, I, Misha - all are from Siberia. Just see voting in non-natural section. I summarize votes in non-natural and natural sections, because it is all the same for us, if the lang will be considered natural or not, and I appealed to the ours vote in non-natural section because it is more likely to be successful. And there are about 10 siberians. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This "proposal" should be classified as vandalism. This language is not real people! What next, should we legalize Marklar from South Park too?

P.S.: My meta account is new, but my en Wiki account is my main one, don't forget this please :))
  • oppose, enthusiasm is no proof of language and no reason for wikipedia section. --Irpen 07:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose, there are no 5-10mln of speakers, where the hell did you digged them out? Siberia population is 20mln, where 80% are Russians and most of them came to Siberia durring Soviet urbanisation of Siberia. Elk Salmon 08:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I consider every northern dialect speaker as speaker of siberian --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could consider as much as you want. But they should consider your language before opening Wikipedia on it. --EugeneZelenko 14:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Sberıa ıs not only SFO, but SFO + UFO + DFO, about 40 mln, 25% sons of the old siberians. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Far East is not Siberia and as well as Ural. And where is figure 25% from? Just your fantasy? This is not language, not even dialect, but just slang of several people. Elk Salmon 23:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About Ural for example read the article "Siberia" in english wiki. The map there covers Ural and northern areas of UFO. Siberian goverments of 1918 considered Far East as part of siberia. Putin's SFO is not Siberia, just modern demarkation. About the percentage read: "По подсчетам новосибирского ученого В.Н. Курилова, "удельный вес потомков русских старожилов в современном населении Западной Сибири может быть оценен в 15–20%". Этот вывод не кажется справедливым, так как русские старожилы не исчезли физически, более того, как показывает исследование современного этнического самосознания русских сибиряков, современные жители Сибири являются прямыми наследниками старожильческого населения, поскольку унаследовали от них этническую идентичность" http://ethnography.omskreg.ru/page.php?id=728
Yes, and comparing to this Russian internet slang (Жаргон падонков) is very popular ;) Edward Chernenko 18:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Russian internet slang contains about 100 words and no grammar, and Siberian language 15 000 words and specific grammar. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Small flash mob-like group of russian LJ users tries to promote their project in Wiki. --Boleslav1.
  • Strong Oppose -- I live in Siberia but I have never heard about any "Siberian language". This is a recently constructed language which exists only in LJ. Only several people use it. DonaldDuck
Еще услышишь. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite fine to hear this from Russian --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ничего удивительного. Возможно, вы путаете слова scum и scam. OckhamTheFox
Quite fine to see Russian (not Ukranian or American!) saying so about ru.wiki and it's users :) Edward Chernenko 18:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What have I say about ru.wiki? We like russian people dialects, but OckhamTheFox names this "Russian scam". But he himself is russian, maybe his vote is also "Russian scam"? It is fun)) And no word about ruwiki here))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not 555 years, and what relation it has to the request? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. фтопку. I was born in Siberia and spent more than 17 years there. ru:user:Lone Guardian
  • Oppose, фэйк ru:user:Glaue2dk
  • Oppose. Apparently an artificially constructed language with no native speakers, a mixture of archaic Russian dialects of Siberia (composed by a bunch of total dilettants in Russian dialectology) with a large infusion of words from Arabic and Persian (sic!). The latter could be changed for Chinese or Pali "loans", were Yaroslav a Buddhist and not a Muslim. As a constructed language, this one does not seem to be known and employed enough so that to qualify for a distinct Wikipedia. Please, note that the article about this ideom itself has been deleted in en:wiki and is currently voted for deletion in ru:wiki. Wouldn't it be stupid on the part of Wiki-Community to proclaim a language not significant enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia at all and at the same time significant enough to start a special Wikipedia in it? P.S. This is my first edit at meta actually, but with 2500+ edits in ru:wiki and a few hundred in en:wiki, I think, I am not a complete newbie. -- Dmitry Gerasimov 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No arabic words in current version, some attempts to use them were a year ago, but failed. Still mentioned in 4 wikis --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the language do not exist, by what language are written the articles in incubator?--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There could be some dialect of Russian in XIX century, but not distinct enough, neither it exists now. The project is proposed by persons who make some seditious insets in texts in Russian wikipedia, exaggerating the Siberian regionalism. Also the author failed to provide a reference to any reliable book (ISBN), so the language movement exists only in the Internet => original research. Siberiano 08:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another russian comes to lie for political reasons. Were the words taken from the Internet, or from the books with ISBN? Just see 10 books in non-natural section from which the words were taken. And why if movement exists in Internet, it is OR? Who established this equality Internet=OR? About 20 articles about the language were published in the Net or not in the Net, so it can not be OR by definition. And about the russian wikipedia I do not understand you))) why your relation to the Siberian regionalism is relevant on question of language? The truth is that you hate siberian regionalism, and this is why you declare the language OR here. But you can not stop us, sibwiki is about 600 articles already, soon will be 1000, 2000, 3000, 10000. Everybody from us know that the words are real and we heard them from our fathers, who lived in Siberia for centuries. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have about 500 reliable sources about the siberian dialect. Just read the first 10 -

1. Блинова О.И., Мартынова С.Э. словарь образных слов и выражений народного говора. – Томск: Изд-во научно-технической литературы, 1997 – 206с.

2.Богословская З.М. Словарь вариантной лексики сибирского говора. – Томск, 2000. – Т.1 – 303с.

3. Вершининский словарь/ Гл. ред. О.И. Блинова. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та, 1998-2001. Т.1-5.

4. Полный словарь сибирского говора/ Гл. ред. О.И.Блинова. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та, 1992-1995. – т. 1-4.

5. Иванцова Е.В. Феномен диалектной языковой личности. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та,2002. – 312с.

6. Словарь просторечных русских говоров/ Гл. ред. О.И.Блинова 1998. – 320с.

7. Раков Г.А. Диалектный идеографический словарь. – Томск. – изд-во Том. ун-та, 1998. – 345с.

8 Словарь русских старожильческих говоров Среднего Прииртышья. В 3 т. Томск, 1992.

9 Садретдинова Г.А. История заселения русскими Западной Сибири в связи с изучением сибирских старожильческих говоров. //Диалектологические и историко-лингвистические проблемы. Омск, 1999.

10 Даль В.И. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка: в 4 т., М., 1989.

If you shall not stop your lie about siberian language and movement, I shall copy all the 500 sources here in the voting. You can see that siberians now write 100 articles a day, so we are very steady, and sure we shall copy the 500 sources here if moscovites will not cease to lie. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's you who lies. Nowhere in any Siberian city anybody speaks this language. You try to present a set of vocabulary deviations, dialects, for a single language. You mix together here the vocabularies of Siberian rural dialects and dialects of old believers who lived isolately. So, there is just a set of different words and different meanings that need explanation for a non-familiar, but not more. The titles say for everything: говор (patois). Why do you list here Даль В.И. (Dal V.I.), Russian dictionary? Siberiano 13:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So siberian words exist and combined together they form the language which was spoken in 19 century, and this language we want to restore. Some words are in Dal vocabulary. Dal considered ukrainian, belorussian and siberian as three "dialect" the most different from the official Russian. The sources testify, that the language of old Siberians was VERY different from the official Rissian. This is truth, but you say lie - "not distinct enough, neither it exists now". It exists in Siberian villages, and in hearts of Siberian intellegent people. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And stop that bullshit about regionalism. I'm a Sibeian regionalist. But you try to promote a fake language project for an unknown purpose. Siberiano 13:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, every moscovite here will soon declare himself siberian regionalist and siberian, for stop the development of the language)))) just read volgota.com and other sites about our purposes, and cease lie here. We shall do 1000 articles until the Siberian Independence Day (17 july), and 10 000 until the day of White-Green Army (29 january), and your lie will be of no effect. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL at you, man and about those tales of language living in "hearts of intelligent people". I know the history well, but the language is your invention. And I'm not a moscovite, lier. You can't prove anything without trying to pesonally insult the opposed. Do not feed the troll. Siberiano 14:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was your goal to begin personal insult here, because you came with a complete lie and can not proof it, and came with personal insults about exaggeration of siberian regionalism) Provide any reliable sources that you are not moscovite)) By your own logic, if you can not proof that you are siberian, but fight in the Moscow part, I think that you are moscovite)) and this is a complete LOL that you are siberian regionalist) to what group do you belong, who is the leader of your group, in what actions did you participate? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps every Russian voted "oppose", or there are some more Russians in the world? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And only Mr. Zolotaryov contributed to adding some arguments for the case. Or are there some more "Sibereano-Chaldoneans" in the world?--Shakura 13:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you lie? See above, about 10 voters argumenting, 10 persons write in the wiki, but you continue to lie - this is the last russian weapon in this world))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Atlas Tamazight

Template:New-language-template

Aramaic/Syriac Wiktionary

Template:New-language-template

  • I propose that the should be a new wiktionary intended for aramaic/syriac speakers. I propose that it be titled "syr.wiktionary.org". This would be a good resource for Chaldeans, Assyrians, Maronites, other Syriac speaking people. I do speak the language, know its spellings, and I wish to administate this webpage to prevent false definitions of words or mispelled words. I need to know how to establish this wiktionary and to change the fonts used within it. I am Makkow makkow and i would greatly appreciate the help. Thank you!
  • There are many languages considered Aramic and Syriac is only one Ethnologue gives you a nice overview about this. Wiktionary aims to have all words of all languages with a userinterface in one language. When you pick one, you face an uphill struggle. When you want to concentrate on adding words of one or more of these languages, you might include it in an existing Wiktionary project. GerardM 13:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Bentael
  • Support Dovi 07:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanized Persian

Template:New-language-template

  • Relevant infos: The language is Romanized Persian. This would be a great idea because there are millions of iranians outside of Iran who grew up in a foregin country with no possibilities of learning how to read Persian with Perso-Arabic letters. Romanized persian is great, because then all the iranians from all over the world could read and understand the persian language, not only the migrated Iranians, but also the Tajiks in Tajikistan who only know the Cyrllic and Latin alphabet (not the Perso-Arabic one). This is a huge issue among us Persian-speakers, not only locally, but globally aswell. This is a way of reuniting these countries and the versions of languages to one whole. This is a way for the people who use the latin alphabet to learn Persian easier.

In this stage, the Latinized Persian alphabet is introduced in schools as a phonemic standard alphabet for Persian transcription, as part of the regular curriculum. Such a simple and easy to use alphabet should be effortless and expeditious to learn for Persian speaking students. It will help them in learning the correct pronunciation of words they might have difficulty reading in the current alphabet. For non-Persian speaking students of the Persian language, it would lift the colossal barrier of having to learn the cumbersome Perso-Arabic script before starting to actually learn the language itself. The only books that would need to be transcribed in this phase are mainly language textbooks, and some of the major Persian literary works like the Shahnameh, Hafez's poetry, Balkhi's Masnavi, etc. A scientific, phonemically structured new script based on the Alphabetic Principle. Mastering reading and writing would become straightforward and simplified. Children and beginners would be able to read any Persian book after only a few months of practice. Educated people would be able to master reading and writing in a very short time. Therefore, a phonemic script like UniPers would help boost interest among Persian speakers in their own literature, culture, and history. On the other hand, the old Perso-Arabic writing system is an obsolete script that completely violates the Alphabetic Principle. Being based on the Latin alphabet would take advantage of its universality. It would make the Persian language much more accessible not only to our children and those who have obtained their secondary and higher education outside the Persian-speaking countries, but also to the non-Persian speaking people who have an interest in studying the Persian culture and history. Thus, Persian culture and language would become readily available to all without the hindrance of a complex, unfamiliar, and cumbersome writing system like Perso-Arabic. A new Latin-based alphabet for Persian can help the language and enrich it. The weak argument that the Persian literary heritage would be lost is completely false. One can print and read the great literary works of Hafez, Sa'di and Ferdowsi even more easily in a phonemic Latin-based alphabet than in the Perso-Arabic. The Perso-Arabic alphabet has turned many Iranians off from reading literary and historical books. This means that unlike what the proponents of the old alphabet say about UniPers severing our contacts with our culture, Perso-Arabic has done more to achieve this break.


Support

  1. Comment - If there is a 1:1 correspondence between romanised Farsi and normal Farsi, wouldn't it be a much better idea to implement some sort of transliteration program? See the Serbian wikipedia for an example. --IJzeren Jan 10:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support--Fratele lui Bonaparte, il cunosti? 05:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support It was always a great problem for me to learn persian because I can not fluently read arabic script, and need sufficient amount of time to begin read it fluently. Read text in new language with slow speed is a bad way to learn it. Even arabic has now latin script and there is Quran and Haddith in the Internet in arabic language and latin alfabet. But I know, many Muslims want to learn not only Arabic, but also Persian and Turk languages, because there are so many classic texts of our culture written in Persian and Turk. So I support this proposal and shall help to develop the wiki, if my basic Persian would be useful there:-) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Maviulke12 00:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Oppose. Persian is doing well with the Perso-Arabic script. A spelling reform would be useful to remove some anomalies, but that's another issue. --Rasulo
    • Comment. How do you know if Persian is doing well with the Perso-Arabic script? We see no motivation in your oppose. How could you possibly know anything about Persian when you are Finnish? That's the worst oppose I've ever heard. --Sorriz

Children's English Wikipedia (9 support, 16 oppose, 1 neutral)

Template:New-language-template

  • This will be a Wikipedia aimed at children, with a less text-heavy interface, more friendly language, explicit content censored and special reference desks for homework help.

Support

  • Support CrnaGora 16:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Milo 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- God of Chaos 02:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I beg to differ with the comment made by 89.176.54.194. Wikijunior is a series of books. Not a free-use site. I think that Simple English Wikipedia is made more for people who are learning English. A Childrens' Wikipedia would be more for teenagers, as many mainstream Wikipedia articles contain too many details, and details that they aren't meant too learn and thus many students will add information to an article (of which they have no idea what it means) may be asked to explain what this means. They will (generally) be incapable of doing so. On the other hand Simple English Wikipedia is way too simple to be accepted as a Upper Primary School/High School assignment. So this wiki should be somewhere in between if it is to work. However it should be re-named to Children's Wikipedia instead of Children's English Wikipedia

Booksworm 13:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Och mein gott, was sind sie blötig schei... you lot are so bloody annoying it's amazing. Wikijunior is still in raw phase. It does not alreadyx exist I mean come on! Booksworm 14:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Strong support I actually came to this page to request for a childrens' Wikipedia after a request at Wikia failed, but hey, there's already a request. I am currently at secondary school but I find that EnWp is sometimes a bit too complex. It can use all these scientific names (blah, blah, blah). As for Simple English, that's for people learning English. On this wiki, we can play around with css and javascript to provide a friendly interface. I think that there are too few Wikipedians who are in the age group mentioned above (see en:Category:Wikipedians by generation). When I get back to school on Monday, I'll set up a petition. I'll send in the link to the 'petition website'. --Leon2323 15:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC) (EnWp)[reply]
Ok, I've asked the survey. I asked 22 people questions about wikis. You can find the results in a Microsoft Access database at http://computerprojects.biz/Children.mdb.
  • This is a proprietary format. Would it be possible to make it available in more usable format?
  • Support. Adult language, the desire of LGBT people to insert gays/lesbians into every historical topic and the proliferation of artricles about pornstars and sexual positions often linked from most unexpected places (such as an article about "spoon") is the main argument in many schools against wikipedia. Mikkalai 17:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Americans should give up their bigotry, censorship and sexual deprivation attempts against their growing-ups and young adults. We are talking about teens, i.e. men who have at most 2½ years left before they're able to become parents themselves. They usually need more time to develop their sexuality healthy, not less, and certainly not another set-back of ten more years! You're attmenpt is futile anyways in a society that allows their teens and pre-teens hours of commercial tv consumption each day where 1 out 12 advertisemnts and 8 of 10 music videos is (soft) porn. Come on! If it was only about this kinda stupidity, I'd strongly oppose this motion. -- Purodha Blissenbach 12:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Gray Porpoise 18:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

--89.176.54.194 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is a Simple English and a proposed Wikichildren. I think that's enough. Blue caterpillar 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Un-Clear

Vai Wikipedia

Template:New-language-template

  • Hello! I`ve got one request for you. I collect words in various languages. Now I`m looking for word "sugar" in other languages, but I can`t find a Vai dictionary. I`ve got counterparts of word "sugar" in Japanese, Ahmaric, Thai, Georgian and Chinese, so can you write me what is "sugar" in Vai language? I`ve got this word in 317 languages and dialects of many regions and countries in the world so it is very important for me! Thank you very much! Szoltys <talk>

Simple Spanish Wikipedia

  • Spanish is worldwide a big language. Would it be an idea to start a "simple

Spanish" wiki: sencillo.wikipedia.org? I would be prepared to contribute to it. Greetings, Jcb 21:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. Fine articles, it can be used for learning Spanish for people who do not know it well. Even I with very basic level of Spanish was able to understand them. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 23:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I'm learning Spanish, I don't see why not. --Jrothwell 15:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thats exactly what I would say! Dutchy-Dick 19:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I'm learning Spanish too, yeah why not! --Flying DutchJan 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Jcb 20:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC) - I don't know if I'm supposed to vote for my own proposal?[reply]
  6. Support A great idea! As interest to Spanish is growing worldwide, this wiki will be very popular. Slavik IVANOV 23:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support GangstaEB (W) 18:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Goddammit all those who wrote simple spanish isn't a language. Well, is Simple English? Bloody hell; If we can have a simple English, then why can't we have a simple for each Wiki with + 100'000 articles? I have never seen thicker people in my entire life (George Bush is less thick) Booksworm 14:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --85.141.204.10 20:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I'm against Simple English, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that I'm also against a dumbed-down español sencillo. —Nightstallion (?) 05:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. N En contra / Oppose--Lin linao 22:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC) : Ver comentarios / See comments.[reply]
  3. Strong oppose. There's not any standard simple Spanish. Wikipedia in Spanish desperatedly needs more contributors rather than split into another version for newcomers. --JRGL 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose --Ecemaml 08:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. En contra. This has come up before, and, as before, I think that not only Simple English didn't fare too well, but also better choices exist for simplified content for junior readers. Taragui 12:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. EN CONTRA OPPOSE - Not an lamguaje Ja-ja. Felipealvarez 14:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Gothmog 18:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Simple English has already shown that the idea of Simple XXX Wikipedias is not a good idea. There are other ways for junior readers. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 04:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Define simple spanish before, please. Platonides (native) 10:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose we had already voted this... --Equi 14:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Airunp 12:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose – rotemliss – Talk 12:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Oscar . 17:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose -B1mbo 22:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong oppose. The samples are so full of grammar mistakes that should be taken as a joke. Cinabrium 04:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Lasneyx 11:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Comae 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC) "Simple Spanish" doesn't exist. And if the test pages are a good example of the kind of "Spanish" will be used, Spanish learners are bound to forget (or worse) whatever they already know. If you want to learn Spanish, use Wikipedia en español --tons of things to do for learners, and 95% of articles there have better Spanish than those test pages. Or use the translation project at Wikiversity, which was thought for language learners.[reply]
  18. Oppose --Taichi - (あ！) 09:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC): ¿Again? This proposal was rejected few months ago. Please, don't persist with this bad joke.[reply]
  19. Oppose Gizmo II 02:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. FML 14:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Orgullomoore 06:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Comae is right, it doesn't do a learner any good to read bad examples, but that's not our problem. It should be our problem, however, that Simple Spanish does not exist. The examples provided are examples of incorrect Spanish. Wikipedia as a whole, and especially the Spanish Wikipedia, doesn't have the extra resources available to waste on inventing new languages--let's stick with what we've got.[reply]
  22. Oppose --Jpcristian (es:Usuario:Jpcristian) 06:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC) It's a made-up language, it shouldn't be included.[reply]
  23. Oppose Tomatejc (es:Usuario:Tomatejc) 06:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Aliman5040 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC) (es:Usuario:Aliman5040)[reply]
  25. Oppose Kordas 09:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose --Mauricio Maluff 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  1. [comment] I would oppose if I were logged in. By the looks of the two sample articles (full of grammatical errors), it's nothing more than an astute attempt by Spanish learners to get some free coaching. ;-) --89.176.54.194 17:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. [comment] Like the opinion before, if I were logged in I would vote against the idea of having a Simple Spanish Wikipedia. I have read the two test articles and as a native Spanish-speaker I must tell you they both are not well written. No sentence there is correct. And the faults are enormous. From my point of view, having a Wikipedia full of articles like these ones wouldn't help people to learn Spanish. ca:Usuari:Manu bcn
    1. My Spanish is good enough to know that this is not true. There is for certain not that amount of errors in the articles. Jcb 18:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      1. As a spanish native speaker (my english sucks, sorry), I'm with Manu bcn. The sample articles are incorrect. Gender errors and the like. Tostadora 22:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      2. Another Spanish native speaker here. Your Madrid article, for instance, has sentences like: En inviernos a veces es debajo 8º. Any elementary Spanish learner should know how to build it correctly: En invierno a veces está por debajo de 8º. Instead, it only misleads. --JRGL 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pero es que el articulo es un joke-fake, ¿en invierno a veces menos de 8º? ¿y en verano la media es 24º?, improbable cuando en invierno hay heladas todos los días (<0º) y en verano rara vez baja de 35º, siendo normal que esté sobre 40º, ¿seguro que se refiere a Madrid? Felipealvarez 14:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. El Español Simple o Sencillo no es un lenguaje desarrollado con reglas específicas como el Inglés Simple, sino la forma en que el usuario Jcb piensa que resulta más sencillo. Ver Wikipedia:Wikipedia no es una fuente primaria. Lo siento, los ejemplos están llenos de errores y un hablante nativo podría tener problemas para entenderlos. (Simple Spanish or Sencillo is not a developed system as Simple English. Today is only the vision of User Jcb about how to make a simplified Spanish. See en:Wikipedia:No original research. I'm sorry, samples contain a lot of errors. A native speaker could have problems reading them.)
  1. You know spanish enoguh to be able to understand it. Other english-learning people can understand it. But they're not in good spanish. This may be a case of newbies understandig themselves with invalid grammar. Please define simple spanish before. The 3 articles have different errors and nonsense-phrases (we can imagine what is intended to say, but the phrase is absurd). Platonides 10:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Los artículos creador en el Incubator son una blasfemia al español, la redacción que se utilizó es pésima, ni siquiera un español hablaría así, se tienen rasgos muy tomados de la gramática del inglés u otro idioma germánico (¿influencias del idioma nativo de Jcb?). Propongo que esos tres artículos sean borrados porque así uno no habla en español, complejo, sencillo, para niños o ancianos. Así no es el español. --Taichi - (あ！) 09:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian (Orthography Revision of 1959) (11 support / 4 oppose)

Template:New-language-template

Test wiki http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/be/

Member of the Commonwealth of East-Slavonic Test wikipedias http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Sodruzhestvo-be

There has already been simmilar request in here. I put it here now again, because the the situation in Belarusian Wikipedia seems abnormal to me.

1.Every single page in 1959rev.pravapis is in category written in 2005rev.pravapis

2.More than the first, some pages have mixed orthographies ex. Бразілія, Балівія, Чылі, 1580 (there are some more of them actually) that is absolutely inadmisible.

3.1959rev. and 2005rev. do differ much more that just of "soft signs", "soft letters" (hard l - soft l). 2005rev. which pretends to be called "classical Belarusian" has different from 1959rev. phrase building (synthax) - while 1959rev. synthax has very few differents from Russian (when I was writing it I remembered only transition of the preposition "к" (in Russian) to preposition "да" (in Belarusian), 2005rev. has (or must have (there are still many syntax mistakes in 2005rev.orthography - contributors just put 1959rev.text with soft signs - this belarusan language phenomenon is called "tarakamauka" ("tarashkevitsa" (unofficial name of 2005rev.) + "narkamauka" (unofficial name of 1959rev.) which is not codified and saying honestly is ungrammar)) so, 2005rev. has much more differents from Russian (see. Некаторыя ўвагі да беларускае літаратурнае мовы), some examples of them are (

  • 1.use of verb infinitive - "вада піць" vs. "вада для піцця" in 1959rev.;
  • 2.use of expression of belonging - "пункт у гледжаньні" in 2005rev. vs. "пункт гледжання" in 1959rev.;
  • 3. use of expression of purpose of thing - "хустачка да носу" vs. "хустачка для носу" in 1959rev. and some more rules signed in the work on knihi.com)

4. For me, as for abiturient (i gonna enter unversity next year), and for all the abiturients who will have Belarusian exam it is terrible to read such a mixture of orthographies in an encyclopedia. After reading words "Галандыя" (1959rev.) and "сьмерці" (2005rev) in one article and then in other articles I have more possibilities to make mistake in school work and, what is horrible, in exam! And I can tell you I've made some already when I instictively wrote "зьмяшчае" (instead of right variant "змяшчае" - w/o soft sign) in school dictation. As a man who contributes to wikipedia and wants belarusian language to become the leading slavic language I can't stop contributing but, as I said, after contributing to such a be.wiki I get mess in my head! Surelly, split will help with Belarussian knowledge systematization.

(I'm a contributor in 2005rev., but i will surelly help new wikipedia in 1959rev. for some time for it to develop)

Thanks for attention ppl! - Анто́сь Казьмярчу́к

PS. I haven't voted for previous propose (Present Belarusian) because facts in there were not true. I would like 2 BELARUSIAN WIKIS TO HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. Surely if one of WIKIS will be filial to another no one will contribute.

PPS Few words about the size, yes be.wiki is small to split, but we in be.wiki prefer quality over quantity (look, there are no empty articles about a year - all of them have some information)

Support

  1. Support -- Mihas Skrypka 09:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support -- Agree with Cazimearciuc. --Node ue 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support -- Bunker 07:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support -- A. Yurkevich 10:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support -- --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support -- --Mienski 10:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --218 12:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support -- --Dmitry Nikitin 08:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support ---Yury Tarasievich 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Fratele lui Bonaparte, il cunosti? 17:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support -- User:boox 02:13, 14 Aug 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support -- Steel archer 19:17, 16 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. This vote recalled by voter ---Yury Tarasievich 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ...(and see comments, too) ---Yury Tarasievich 13:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So what's the matter about not opening new Academic-language Belarusian Wikipedia? User:Mienski 14:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, after the experiences of last 2 months, I feel I could, possibly, re-consider changing my vote to support. I'd like to see the intentions of the proposers stated more clearly, however.
    - I understand the supposed name would be ISO639, bel.wikipedia.org -- and that's the only acceptable name in the situation.
    - What about that "100% normative orthography, syntax and everything"? While I consider the alternative orthography quite a un-needed and even harmful exercise, and while the wantonly introduction of the Polish words (like "выспа" for geogr. "island") is simply an abomination, I'd like to see some leeway on the syntax and morphology here, as some of the 1933-1959 changes in those had been objectively, un-Belarusian.
    So, what do you think? ---Yury Tarasievich 22:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Іншымі словамі, калі кіраўніцтва новай ВП абяцае даваць пэўную ступень свабоды на сінтаксіс-марфалогію (невялікія вольнасці ў кіраваннях, у канчатках склонаў) і лексіку (сістэмна беларускія дадаткі да існуючай), то можна за яе стварэнне галасаваць. Таму што ўжо відаць, што з ВП пад назвай be.wikipedia.org толку не будзе, бо створана, каб рухаць "справу клясычнага правапісу". ---Yury Tarasievich 19:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm transferring my vote to support (although somewhat against my best judgement...) ---Yury Tarasievich 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I disagree that this suffering Belarusian language must be split in two. I see no problems in co-existing synonyms from two sources. English has both "trunk" and "proboscis" and other 5-cent and 20-dollar synonyms coming from German and Romance origins respectively. The only requirement would be consistency of orthography (and optionally vocabulary) in a single article, something like British/American English in en:wikipedia. Otherwise it is pointless dispersion of efforts of so scarse Belarusophone contributors. Mikkalai 17:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's terrible, but this condition (about consistence of orthography) isn't met in Be-Wikipedia. User:Mienski 14:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose No different ortographical Wikipedias please. --Taichi - (あ！) 05:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just orthography, but also morphology, lexics and a lot more differences. User:Mienski 14:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose The difference between orthographies can probably be handled by computer, e.g. extend the software to allow display (first) then contributions (second) in both orthographies. - FrancisTyers 11:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, this is one of be.wiki admin EugeneZelenko "arguments". So far, no such a script has been created (for about a year already). And, saying fairly, it cannot be done because of different transliteration of foreign words. No program imo can convert "філязофія" to "філасофія" using NO databases of words. But this example is not the only one, examples include practicaly any adoptedd words. Surely, no one can create such a database. And more than that, the database that keeps 2 variants of ANY SINGLE NAME of well-known people from EU, US, Africa etc. cannot be ever made.
    • Good news: Such a database is being made. Of course, it needs contributors of scripts for those cases that can be handled along some general rules, and educated typists entering the rest. For the time being, if you have not more than a few thousand articles/names in the Беларуси Wikipedia, typing their Lemmata twice manually would not be too hard or time consuming a job. Refer to Category:Ultimate Wiktionary for history, and WiktionaryZ for current reality, @ pre alpha state. If you have data bases of words of both orthograpies available, imho importing them would be a not too complicated task. If you have not, you might ask for a script that can convert semi-automatically, suggesting spellings, and a human says yes/no/which one, respectively, with a mouse click, allowing speedy conversions. -- Purodha Blissenbach 13:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Голос снят проголосовавшим --Dmitry Nikitin 08:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Дело в том, что именно тот вариант орфографии беларусского языка, который на данный момент используется в be.wikipedia.org, и является таким вот "дореволюционным" вариантом. Эта орфография поддердживалась в основном только эмигрантскими кругами, которые оказались за пределами Беларуси в связи с гонениями советской власти. Представьте себе ситуацию, когда бы русские эмигранты не приняли реформу русского языка начала 20го века ("т.к. она была проведена после революции при большевиках") и затем, после развала СССР, начали бы активно продвигать написание "ятей" и других архаичных значков. К сожалению, так и произошло у нас, в Беларуси. Вы спросите, почему тут написано 1957rev и 2005rev? Т.к. основы первого, официального, современного написания были приняты и внедрялись ещё с 1957 г., т.о. имея богатый культурный языковой материал. Та же орфография, которую некоторые пробуют представить как "класическую", была кодифицирована (причём ужасным образом - много ляпов, недоработок, отдалённость от живой беларуской традиции перенимания иностранных слов, употребление диалектизмов, полонизмов и т.д.; без широкого общественного обсуждения, опираясь на речь людей, которые даже не живут в Беларуси (старые эмиграционные издания, радио "Свабода" (которое вещает с территории Чехии и сотрудниками которого являются те же эмигрантские круги) только в 2005г.
    Вы меня убедили. Отзываю свой голос и иду ставить его выше - ЗА. Кстати, простите, что не подписался. И ещё, я сейчас сотру свой голос, но мне ведь могут сказать, что я вандалил, стирая чужие голоса так что поправьте там как нужно, если что --Dmitry Nikitin 08:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Снова страшилки рассказывают... В be.wikipedia.org используются и нормативный и классический вариант. Единственная пока не разрешимая техническая проблема - категории. --EugeneZelenko 14:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Что за дореволюционная грамматика? Товарищ сам понимает, что он написал? Суржик и трасянку поддерживаю, и донскую балачку, если только она не совпадает с суржиком. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Имеется ввиду русская орфография до 1918 года. Согласен, лучше было бы написать "до реформы русской орфографии". Правда там были некоторые грамматические изменения. Но не суть. Мы сейчас про белорусский.--83.237.20.182 06:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose --81.25.45.199 15:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose -- Voevoda 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Per Mikkalai. --Yakudza 11:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Если будете делать тестовую в инкубаторе, буду пытаться участвовать, кроме того из нашей тусовки четверо знают язык. Нам там все равно скучно среди курдов:-) По сути же дела я разрываюсь между двумя мотивами 1) я вообще за увеличение лингвистического разнообразия восточнославянских вик, так что не только за наркомовку и полесский, но и за поморский и казацкий; 2) с другой стороны, употребление наркомовки политически окрашено, и я в это ввязываться не хочу, не гражданин Беларуси. Поэтому пока не определился, зато точно буду это читать и пытаться контрибутить. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Я меняю свою позицию, наблюдая то, что творят представители авторитарного мышления на сибирском голосовании. Почему у французов, итальянцев, немцев есть вики на тех языках, которые не укладываются в национальный стандарт, а у восточных славян нет? На самом деле славяне сейчас в худшем положении, чем французы, у которых норманскую википедию открыли буквально два норманна. Единственный путь разрушать авторитарное сталинистское представление о том, что восточнославянских языков якобы только три, это открывать все новые и новые вики, на всех разновидностях, пока восточнославянских вик не будет как итальянских. Поэтому я поддерживаю любую новую восточнославянскую википедию. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Зачем такие сложности? Писать официальным правописанием (наркамаўкай) можно и в белорусской Википедии. --EugeneZelenko 13:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Исхожу из того, что демократия - это многообразие. Но вы правы, если суппортер только один, значит это просто никому не нужно. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Наркомовка / наркамаўка" -- умышленно оскорбительный термин ("Narkamauka" is a deliberately derisive term). Thank you. ---Yury Tarasievich 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This proposal isn't well prepared, technically:
  1. You can't go around inventing the language codes (and Byel... was far more fair in rendering of the Belarusian diphtong, anyway :)).
  2. You can't push to the alternative namespace the literary and normative branch of the language (the only one taught in schools for 70+ years).
  3. References to unverifiables pushed forward ("...spoken in real life..."), references to verifiables dismissed (data of the polls of 1959, 1979, 1989, 1999, data on schooling etc.).
  4. There are much worse misuses of the Belarusian language now in (alternative-pushers-ridden) BE:WP, like using the Polish-influenced barbarisms instead of either the normative word or even the "pre-armageddon" (1933) word. The immediately known example is use of "выспа"/"паўвыспа" for "island"/"peninsula" instead of normative "востраў"/"паўвостраў" or "атока,абток"/"паўатока,паўабток" (as used by Lastowski, Akula).
  5. The "negative influence" of the "mix" is completely to blaim of the promoters of the alternative version of the orthography, insisting on everything in Belarusian to be done alternatively, not in the normative --- and on their terms, too.
  6. References to the dubious sources (knihi.com is a politically dedicated site) are used, with tells immediately:
    1. For "drinking water" there exists an expression "пітная вада" in Belarusian, not bizarre "вада піць" or secondary "вада для піцця"
    2. For "handkerchief" there exists an expression "насоўка" in Belarusian, not the Polish-influenced barbarisms "хустачка да носу" and "хустачка для носу"
    3. For "point of view" there exists an equivalent "пункт гледжання" or somewhat not-mainstream "гледзішча". The conflict of "пункт у гледжаньні" vs. "пункт гледжання" is either invented or something else is mistakenly perceived as such.
I think bel.wikipedia.org is a fine domain for Belarusian language.
Though my examples appeared bad enough, this tutorial by Losik exists and it's not "politicaly dedicated document) and it seems like it's to be used for writing in 2005rev.
  • # You can't go around inventing the language codes (and Byel... was far more fair in rendering of the Belarusian diphtong, anyway :)).
  1. You can't push to the alternative namespace the literary and normative branch of the language (the only one taught in schools for 70+ years).
Let it be bel.wiki, there mustn't be much of discussion.
# There are much worse misuses of the Belarusian language now in (alternative-pushers-ridden) BE:WP, like using the Polish-influenced barbarisms instead of either the normative word or even the "pre-armageddon" (1933) word. The immediately known example is use of "выспа"/"паўвыспа" for "island"/"peninsula" instead of normative "востраў"/"паўвостраў" or "атока,абток"/"паўатока,паўабток" (as used by Lastowski, Akula).
2. Show me where i have said 2005rev. contributors are exellently literate? Same things happen to 1959rev. users when they push russian words into articles. Personally i dislike this layer of polonismes, which appeared in the times of reincarnating of the classic spelling.
# The "negative influence" of the "mix" is completely to blaim of the promoters of the alternative version of the orthography, insisting on everything in Belarusian to be done alternatively, not in the normative --- and on their terms, too.
Yes, til all of admins use it. But, as it has been already discussed naming categories in 1959rev. style will cause bigger mess. And naming all the cathegories in 1959rev. is POV, as it's POV to name all the cathegories in 2005rev. The only right decision is to split as it seems to me.
So I personally miss your point, you dislike 2005rev, but you denie new wiki too. What's the matter then? 82.209.208.199 14:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why did you open new request instead of reopen old one? --EugeneZelenko 13:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it may be reopened/Facts were totally untrue in there.82.209.208.199 14:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which facts exactly? At least list of opposers/supporters and their arguments could be definitely shared.
Please register on meta.
EugeneZelenko 14:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Statements that 2005rev. is a couple of archaic dialects and 1959rev. is "a present-day belarusian". And i thought there was a proposal to keep 2005rev. as a filial of 1959rev, but not as separate project. It's a bit confusing for me, I'vent found that in the previous request, maybe i've read of it somewhere else. 82.209.208.199 15:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And i thought there was a proposal to keep 2005rev. as a filial of 1959rev, but not as separate project. - it was condition for support from MaximLitvin. These words was not in request itself. --EugeneZelenko 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I've read a terrible article about Homel recently. This is what i've noticed:
  1. Introduction is written in 2005rev.
  2. Part about name of the city is written in 1959rev.
  3. Part about history is written in 2005rev.
  4. Part about population is written in 1959rev. (тысяч instead of тысячаў)
  5. Part about education in Homel is mixed: subsection about univercities is written in 1959rev., subsection about institutes is written 2005rev. (word Мінистэрства uses both belarusian і and russian и for some reason)
  6. Parts about industry, sport and comments to external links are written in 2005rev.

And this is only 1 example of what this "encyclopaedia" contains. What do you think, is such a situation normal for Wikipedia?

Could you please take a look into be:Вікіпэдыя:Правапіс and be:Абмеркаваньне Вікіпэдыя:Правапіс#Галасаваньне па новай рэдакцыі правіл? Rules are exists, but does anybody following them? If you have time, please fix article. --EugeneZelenko 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of the ISO 639 codes for Belarusian language belongs to the normative, literary, academic branch of the Belarusian language, which millions of people are at least familiar with (1999 poll), which is taught in shool on mandatory basis, etc. etc. ad nauseaum.
  • Consequently, the normative branch of language in Wikipedia declaring it's in "Belarusian language", must primarily provide the possibility for the use of the normative variant. Everything else, be it a dialect, an alternative orthography or anything, either co-exists non-disruptingly, or goes out into separate sub-spaces. It's not the business of the normal Belarusian language speaker that somebody wants everybody to use the brilliant new invented orthography and it can't be considered a POV that the un-curtailed use of the normative version of language is primarily expected in the wikipedia decalring itself Belarusian.
  • However, what we have now in BE:WP is:
  1. The (3) admins and their pals pushing the use of the alternative orthography and inventing the "righteous" lexicon.
  2. The admins are backed by the rules which weren't voted on when introduced, and those rules are curtailing the use of the normative branch of the language.
  3. The currently on-going vote on so called "co-existence of orthographies" is conducted with all imaginable violations of procedure -- e.g., admin EugeneZelenko who opened the voting didn't put all of the proposals on vote, and refused to do so, when reminded, retorting that the proposals not put on vote were "not quite good". AFAIU, the right to vote is determined by the previous participation in BE:WP (subjected to the mentioned rules).
Only anonimous user are not allowed in this voting. I think this is common practice in WP. --EugeneZelenko 14:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh well, somebody (was it you, admin EugeneZelenko?) had "cleverly" removed all the discussion on the proposals on the rules prior to June 25, 2006, complete with my proposal (which is not on voting) which initiated the discussion , on the prior to 25.06.2006, so now EugeneZelenko feels free to claim that "all is well" with the BE:WP procedure. What a "fearless fighters with regime" those persons are. What a petty falsificators. Have decency to stand by to your own actions, "admin" EugeneZelenko! ---Yury Tarasievich 06:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


So, you would agree if the current be.wiki stays for 1959rev. and 2005rev. articles are moved to, for ex., be-alt.wiki? Btw, i've now read one more article in even more odd orthography - about Joseph Yuho (Язэп Юхо), it's written in 1959rev. with the use of "soft signs" and 2005rev. Менск and Полацак words, i will try to correct that one but i doubt i'll have success; and while two orthographies so-exist, i think such "hybrid" articles will stay and the number of them will grow. 82.209.209.240 16:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I would much rather if the admins and their pals quit their agit-propping and just do their service to the Belarusian people meaning serving technical side of the BE:WP and not dabbing in the politics, which they handle shoddily, anyway. :)
Just think -- two WPs means doubled effort on maintenance, two versions of everything... To what purpose? As if we have all of our problems solved... Personally, I'm not at all interested in technicalities, only in writing on certain tematics... However, the un-avoidable necessity for some kind of separation -- which you describe -- may yet arise, as the current crew still understand their mission here as some kind of "struggle with regime". ---Yury Tarasievich 22:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that separation will solve such problems. In real life correctors work during book preparation. I don't think that people exist who never made spelling mistakes or used incorrect words :-) Think about corrector job as part of maintenance such as interwikis, categorization, formatting and so on. It's mainly technical, but necessary for improving quality of articles. Volunteer's positions are always opened :-) --EugeneZelenko 14:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Separation would hopefully solve the issue of petty falsificators and crooked "admins", though. Then all of your bunch will happily sit in your ivory tower, feeling smug and superiour to the other Belarusian folks. ---Yury Tarasievich 06:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • be-1959.wikipedia.org ?
I think bel.wikipedia.org would be great. User:Mienski 12:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official State language, not the archaic form, should have Wiki! User:boox

Sheng

Template:New-language-template

  • we are still trying to get Kenyans to understand the wiki.
  • Sheng is a slang trnslation of Kiswahili (Swahili)

It is mainly spoken by Kenyan youth. For those who have issues with Sheng, accept the fact that even the Kenyan president, Mwai Kibaki[[9]]) speaks sheng... Mjienjoy!!! 60% of Kenyans are between the ages 18-30. Thats about 15,000,000 'youth'. 2,000,000 Sheng speakers is conservative.

Support

Oppose

  • Oppose because it is a street slang with many variants. I have the impression that Sheng is broken Swahili mixed with any other language that the speakers know. It's not an established language, it's more like a pidgin in creation. -- Rasulo
  • On top of that, it is hardly ever written and the Swahili Wikipedia is far from flourishing at the moment. Imo we should focus on getting the regular Swahili Wikipedia up and running before even thinking of opening one in Sheng. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 10:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's nothing wrong about colloquial language (->"youth culture"), of course. But encyclopedias generally use more formal language, for good reasons. Plus we don't do Wikipedias for specific age groups. --ARBE0 15:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews in Cantonese

Simple French Wikipedia

== Language ==
this language is not used anywhere but I think that it would be useful for those who are being educated in the language, similar to "Simple English". Simple English has its own Wikipedia here, so I think that it would be appropriate to have one for French, another common language.
   * People interested (if native speaker, please mark (N)):
         Myself (proposer)
   * Language code (ISO 639): simplefr
   * Proposed domain: simplefr.wikipedia.org (not taken)
   * Relevant infos:
         o Native name(s): Francais simple
         o English name or description: Simple French Wikipedia
         o Approximate number of speakers: A very large number know basic French
         o Location(s) spoken: Worldwide
         o Closely related languages, if any: Simple English (link to Simple English Wikipedia)
   * Link to request on a mailing list: NONE

Oppose

  • Oppose. Simple French is useless for people which speak French (including those who are at school). simplefr is not an ISO 639 code. French is not closely related to English. (1 August 2006)
  • Oppose : non-sense. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 00:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a matter of fact, the government of Québec does employ simplified "handicap-accessible" French at times. But I'm not really interested in this project (count me as "weak neutral"). The Jade Knight 06:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berber

Template:New-language-template

Surzhyk

Template:New-language-template

Test wiki: http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-WP/surzh

Member of the Commonwealth of East-Slavonic Test wikipedias http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Sodruzhestvo-sur

Support

  1. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Dmitry Nikitin 15:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (N) Support --Mikolasz, Mikolasz@mail.ru, Mikolasz.livejournal.com, 21:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support -- Ivan Kalatukhin, ivan.kalatukhin@gmail.com, 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. --Node ue 00:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. (N) Support --218 19:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support--Fratele lui Bonaparte, il cunosti? 05:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support -- A. Yurkevich 15:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --George D. Bozovic 16:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Pauk 07:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Yes, we must have this VanHelsing.16

Oppose

Padonki

Template:New-language-template

Support

  1. Support. --Jaroslavleff 06:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. --193.19.83.9 06:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. --85.141.213.14 06:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. --Fallingfree 07:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (N) Support for sure. This is a large culture and a WP in this language will be very successful. Csman 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Swix 07:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, much more popular than so-called "siberian". MaxSem 07:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (N) Support, very popular language in Internet --Pauk 07:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC) / ru:user:Pauk[reply]
  9. Support, much more peoples speak in "padonkian" then "siberian" (Ф дисятке и ниипёт :)--Morpheios Melas 07:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC) / (ru:user:Morpheios Melas +Sysop)[reply]
  10. Support, the language is wide spread all over the world —lstar 07:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. (N) Strong support, this language is really very popular in Russia. труъ! Edward Chernenko 07:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Wikipedia in this language will be very popular. --Zserghei 07:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. --195.131.209.98 08:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. --kolen 08:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. (N) Support. --AndyVolykhov 08:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. (N) Strong support. It is really popular and spoken. In contrast to Siberian VanHelsing.16
  17. (N) Support --89.175.28.76 09:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. ф дватцадке. OckhamTheFox
  19. Support - unlike the infamous "Siberian language", it at least DOES really exist, and IS really popular among some groups. If there's a space for "Siberian language" in the wiki, there should be a space for the "Padonkian language", too. Despite none of them should be treated seriously, in my opinion. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. --217.70.122.58 11:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. (N) Support ф тридцатке--Lone Guardian 11:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) / ru:user:Lone Guardian[reply]
  22. Support --Tassadar 11:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. But in such case, also a Wikipedia for Kashenite Language should be created. It is also fairly widespead and can be understood by Russian speakers. See also: ru:Кащенизм, ru:Кащениты. --Oal 12:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) / ru:user:Oal[reply]
  24. Support --Kink 12:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. (N) Support Finally, after falling of USSR we found a way to speak at out real language! Medvedov-Prevedkovich 13:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. (N) Support Padonki language is quite wide spread. It shall never be forgotten! --Zach0t 15:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC) ru:user:Lengra[reply]

Oppose

It's just a primitive slang which appeared few years ago and will die in 3-4 years. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.220.35.194 (talk)

Same as Siberian :) --Morpheios Melas 12:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian appeared in 7 century AC --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY? Please quote ANY reliable source proving that Slavic people lived there at that time (e.g. any archeological excavation data).--Shakura 14:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Siberian is codification of Novgorod Slavonic language (so called 'north russian dialect'). But the north russian has very few similiar to the "russian" language, invented by Lomonosov in 18 century and used by Russian state and ruwiki.--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's a dead language VanHelsing.16
Yes, dead language with sufficient remains in modern farmer's dialects, we want to revive it, the same was in Europe with occitan, aragon, etc, etc, so why russian nationalists so hate such a natural process of reviving old dialects, very common in Europe? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last article about the siberian language, just read it and cease lie:

""Где можно купить книги на диалектах русского языка?" Вопрос моей финской знакомой застает врасплох. А нигде... Приобрести книги на диалектах русского в России невозможно. Приходится объяснять, что в СССР с диалектами боролись, а в современной РФ освоение медиа-пространства на поморском или сибирском диалекте великого и могучего находится в зачаточном состоянии. И занимаются этим исключительно энтузиасты, которых подчас записывают чуть ли не в сепаратисты." http://www.kasparov.ru/material.php?id=44E2DAC8CA37F

Every serious internet newspaper in Russia writes about tragedy of siberian people and siberian language, only 20 russian nationalists try to lie in international wikipedia about us. Stupid provocations combined with lie and personal insults - you are real descendants of your fathers, stalinist and czarists, who killed people speaking in novgorod-siberian and prohibited to write in it. You destroyed the Great Novgorod many times and your imperial civilization is founded on lie and violence. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


If so, padonki's language is codification of ancient australian natives language. Edward Chernenko 15:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such a stupid lie only shows that you are vandal. The salng was invented by udaffcom and has almost no differences from the russian--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - only 50 words are different from the russian, grammar and pronunciation are the same. The voting itself is only russian nationalist flash-mob for stop the development of Siberian wiki. Siberian wiki does no harm to the russians, but they hate every old slavonic dialects in their territory, trying to stop their revival by any ways, even vandalizing in Meta. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian nationalism? OMG! I thought you were wiser... VanHelsing.16
And personal insults combined with lie - this is all what you can do against me --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we do anything against you? All we want is a Wiki in our language! --Zach0t 15:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Меня просто дергает что склоняют сибирский. А вообще добро пожаловать в инкубатор)) Я даже не против вас принять в восточнославянское сообщество инкубатора) Когда начнется тестовая вика? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And how can we stop the development of Siberian wiki? It's founded. OK, we just want to have Padonkian as well! VanHelsing.16
+1 --Zach0t 15:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
just constant metioning of siberian in your mouths testifies about this. Having no proofs to you lie, having no support, hating real language of the russian people, you again and again come to fight with siberian, again and again want to dictate your imperial language to the slavonians of Russia and Siberia--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh that's a kind of paranoia! I don't speak Siberian and I don't hate it (that's strange to hate a language). I don't dictate anything! I don't fight with it! If you want to speak it - speak. how can I deny using a language?!!
You use Sibearian, I use Padonkian. That's all. VanHelsing.16
So why did you vote against Siberian?)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the idea of Siberian wikipedia. OK, the language exists, but very few people use it and very few are interested in learning and using it. Wikiproject must be large and useful. I don't believe it'll be large and useful (the amount of speakers is not enough) VanHelsing.16
But practice disproves this. After 2 months, in very bad condition in incubator, persecuted by the official ru-wiki, constantly attacked by russian vandals, we have more than 1200 articles, written by 10 persons, this is 99 level from 228 wikipedias --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Min Dong

Template:New-language-template

Support:

  1. Support --Taichi - (あ！) 21:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Node ue 00:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Comments:

  • The Mìng-dĕ̤ng-ngṳ̄ Test Wikipedia has been created Here.

--Jose77 00:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The current article about Min Dong is merely a stub. For outsiders to understand the debate, people familiar with this language ought to provide some context. For example, they could provide some comparisons of Min Dong with Min Nan, and even Mandarin. I am not a Min Dong speaker, but in my opinion, Min Dong ("Eastern Min") is merely a dialect of the Min language whose pronunciations, slang, and minor grammatical points make it moderately unintelligible with other Min dialects, similar to Schwyzerdütsch (Alemannic or "Swiss German")'s relationship with German. So unlike Min itself, which is a distinct language (not a dialect) within the Chinese language family which includes Mandarin, Cantonese, and Wu (all virtually completely unintelligible languages as different as Spanish and French); Min Dong and Min Nan are dialects of the same language. And dialects of languages don't have their own wikipedias. Or do they: Wikipedia in Alemannic/Swiss German Low Saxon/German Wikipedia --72.140.132.53 06:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you're wrong. Very, very, very, very wrong. "Bân-lâm" is Min Nan (Southern Min) equivalent of Min Dong (Eastern Min) word "Mìng-nàng". If you think "ban lam" and "ming nang" are phrases in the same language, you are insane. --Node ue 08:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Laz language (Lazuri Nena)

Template:New-language-template

Support:

  1. Support --
  2. Support 64.56.235.16 15:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Kober
  4. Support Khoikhoi 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Belgian man (nl na en) 11:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. --Node ue 22:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC) until you find some native speakers.[reply]

Comments:

  • If cdo is the ISO code, you will have to go with it for the subdomain, too. This appears a bit unfortunate, since laz would certainly be nice. If possible, try to have the ISO code changed, which I doubt would be easy or quickly accomplished. Good luck! -- Purodha Blissenbach 00:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Aramaic/Syriac Wiktionary

I request that a wiktionary for the Aramaic/Syriac language be created for the many ethnicities that use this language. I also would like to be the Administrator of this wiktionary. Makkow

Requests for Wikiversity Languages

Requests for creating a new language version of Wikiversity are a bit different from requesting a new language version of Wikipedia. In addition to making a formal request below, there must be a demonstration of support from at least 10 different users before the Wikiversity edition may be created. Request for trial version of Wikiversity can also be made on the incubator Wiki.

See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-August/009046.html for some additional details.

*Note* - this is not support of opposition to the concept of Wikiversity, just if you think the language itself should be supported for creation as a new language edition for Wikiversity.

English Wikiversity

English Wikiversity already exists : See v:. Guillom 15:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Roberth 13:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Just to see how the project could evolve. But I am afraid that, initially, its viability is limited to the three languages (English, German and French) which have largest Wikipedias. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 08:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

German Wikiversity

Comment - in the case of German Wikiversity, the domain has been established for some time and the project does exist after a fashion. Indeed it was one of the reasons that started the whole proposal for Wikiversity through the new project process. This request is mainly a formality to document that de.wikiversity could have been set up had a formal vote for activation actually occured when the rest of the various language versions of Wikiversity were also set up, or what the fate of http://de.wikiversity.org/ should be.

Support

  • Support. Just to see how the project could evolve. But I am afraid that, initially, its viability is limited to the three languages (English, German and French) which have largest Wikipedias. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 08:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Spanish Wikiversity

Support

Oppose

French Wikiversity

Support

Oppose

Portuguese Wikiversity

Support

Oppose

Italian Wikiversity

Support

Oppose

Serbian Wikiversity

Support

Oppose

Japanese Wikiversity

Support

Oppose

Polish Wikiversity

Support

Oppose

Finnish Wikiversity

Support

Oppose

Ukrainian Wikiversity

Support

Oppose
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages&oldid=410571"