Relevant infos: One of the Dutch official languages just like Frisian and Limburgs
Link to article on the language in an existing Wikipedia: Low Saxon and North Veluws
App. number of speakers: No estimate available except for the province of Groningen which is: 592,000. My estimate is about 1.8 million who speak Dutch-Low Saxon.
Actually redundant with nds:, but it would be very neat, just since the nds: Wikipedia uses German spelling, and articles in Dutch based spelling would be largely incompatible with it. Caesarion 14:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The number of speakers might be slightly too optimistic: 1.8 million seems more likely.
Strong oppose. If you want to discuss spelling issues, you're welcome to subscribe to Lowlands-l. There is no rule against using Dutch spelling on nds.wikipedia (obviously it's not used very much there, but as I said there's no rule against it). Low Saxon is a dialect continuum -- there is no real difference between what people living right next to the border on one side speak than those right across from them. --Node ue 16:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But ADMIT that the fact that nds:, being for all Low German varieties, already has almost unbearable differences (or did you think an Apeldoorn dialect native speaker could understand West Pomerian?), and that these differences, in combination with the wide gap between Dutch and German spellings make nfs: unsuitable for any content in Dutch Low Saxon dialects. Caesarion 17:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lowlands-l does not help here. After some discussions we have decided to use the German based spelling according to SASS for the nds wikipedia. The spelling proposed by Lowlands-l is no option for us. And I can understand very well, that the Dutch based spelling and our spelling do not match. In addition to that we have another problem: when Low Saxon lacks a word, we (on the German side of the border) have the tendency to borrow a German word, and on the other side of the border they would certainly prefer to borrow a dutch word. The language fell apart a long time ago. In fact most people in Germany do not even know that there is a Low Saxon language on the other side of the border. When I think about the two different versions of the Norse wikipedia that are made for one single country and when I think about the Aromunian wikipedia, I think that having a separate wikipeda for nds-nl is the best option. HeikoEvermann 11:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But there is no rule that you may not add content in your dialect/spelling/etc in it. You say it's unsuitable, but have you tried?? --Node ue 04:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually we are unifying the spelling (to the spelling according to Sass) whereever we find differences. The only real exception that we list alternative spellings for the title of the article in the first paragraph and we sometimes provide redirects from alternative spellings to the main article. But the article itself should follow Sass. HeikoEvermann 10:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In fact this fact has no relevance whatsoever. Being a native speaker has not been a prerequisite for working on any wikipedia. I am not a native English speaker either and yet I have made contributions to en.wikipedia.org. HeikoEvermann21:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For what shall we try first? I looked for a comparison in English language and I would say, that nds-de and nds-nl are as far apart in pronounciation and in spelling as modern English and the 1400 example of middle English in en:Middle English (this isn't the best comparison because one is a parallel development and the other serial, but the best example I found). If it were possible I really would like and want one Wikipedia for both. But it would be very hard to understand. Sure, if there would be a common orthography neither based singly on German nor on Dutch, this would be easier, but there is no such common orthography that is in broader use. The actual reality is, that we need two Wikipedias. --Slomox 16:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
strong support. there's nothing like unity in diversity :-) oscar 00:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
support. Maybe we should count the votes now? Guaka 20:49, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
5 people willing to work on it, 2 3 other people's support and
I generally support this proposal, but I would recommend 1) narrowing the range of dialects covered, and 2) allowing for further wikipedias at a later date in other varieties of Low Saxon in the Netherlands, such as Gronings and Stellingwerfs, if and when there is sufficient support for these. (I realise these issues have been discussed on the mailing lists, but it doesn't seem that there is a sufficient degree of consensus yet for this request to proceed any further. I don't want to rekindle any flame war here - merely find some kind of workable solution. After all, I think everyone here wants to see a wikipedia in some form(s) of Dutch Low Saxon.) --Chamdarae17:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Dutch Low-Saxon is a combination of dialects without a single language combining them. As such, something written in Gronings will be as incompatible with something written in Twents or Achterhoeks as something written in Dutch or German Low Saxon would be. As far as I know, no unified orthography or even vocabulary exists. - 81.70.91.20722:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
