Requests for new languages

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Jorgengb (talk | contribs) at 11:05, 15 October 2005 (→‎Tibetan). It may differ significantly from the current version.
Projects

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

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

Procedure

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

  1. Peruse the complete list of Wikimedia projects. If the language you are looking for is not listed, look for very similar languages. Your proposed language must be sufficiently different, in its written form, from any other already-created language.
  2. You must have an account here on the Meta wiki.
  3. Copy and paste the template to the new proposals section.
  4. Find the ISO code or propose a code for your language.
  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

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

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

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

This is an issue that is decided by consensus.

Can there be wikis in ancient languages?

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

Can there be wikis in artificial languages?

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

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

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

How many speakers are necessary?

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

Template

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

Just copy & paste: 

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

Approved: Banyumasan, Ripuarian, Udmurt, Venetian, Samogitian

see Approved requests for new languages

In need of native contributors: Ainu, Saterlandic, Sorbian, Franco-Provencal, Ligurian, Lombard, Papiamento, Sranang Tongo

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

Moved requests

Discussion ongoing

Dutch Low Saxon 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 01:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Relevant infos:
    • One of the Dutch official languages just like Frisian and Limburgs
    • 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.
    • Location(s) spoken: East and northern Netherlands
    • Closely related languages, if any: Dutch, Afrikaans, Frisian, Limburgs and German-Low Saxon
    • External links to organizations that promote the language: Streektaal.net, Lowlands-L.net
  • Summary of support:
  1. Servien
  2. Caesarion
  3. Heiko Evermann (Heiko Evermann)
  4. Waerth
  5. Quistnix
  6. ProfSjors
  7. Bart v.d. Heij
  8. Slomox
  9. Oscar
  10. Guaka
  11. Arbeo
  12. Tuf-Kat
  13. Dinsdagskind
  14. Nijman
  15. Frünn
  16. Raetius
  17. Fnorp
  18. Flyingbird
  19. Migdejong
  20. Patio
  21. Tubantia N
  22. – gpvos (talk)

In case NODE UE decides to put back the socalled "anon users" please check your sources there are clearly tons of edits so I don't know how you can't say they have 0 edits? Das seker Amerikaonse logika of soiets, of meschien gewoon 'n domme aktie van 'n gebruker die syn bronnen nie kentroleert:
-- see: Fnorp's edits
-- see: Migdejong's edits
-- see: ProfSjors' edits
-- see: Nijman's edits
-- see: Heiko's edits

  • Summary of oppose:
  1. Node ue
  2. 81.70.91.207
  3. 220.149.85.57
Comments
    • Actually redundant with nds:, but it would be very neat, just since the nds: Wikipedia uses German spelling, and articles in Dutch based spelling would be largely incompatible with it. Caesarion 14:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The number of speakers might be slightly too optimistic: 1.8 million seems more likely.
    • Strong oppose. Servien is proposing to divide Low Saxon based on national boundaries and imagined differences, rather than true dialectal differences. However, if Servien limits his request to Veluws only, I will support it. --Node ue 16:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • But ADMIT that the fact that nds:, being for all Low German varieties, already has almost unbearable differences (or did you think an Apeldoorn dialect native speaker could understand West Pomerian?), and that these differences, in combination with the wide gap between Dutch and German spellings make nfs: unsuitable for any content in Dutch Low Saxon dialects. Caesarion 17:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Lowlands-l does not help here. After some discussions we have decided to use the German based spelling according to SASS for the nds wikipedia. The spelling proposed by Lowlands-l is no option for us. And I can understand very well, that the Dutch based spelling and our spelling do not match. In addition to that we have another problem: when Low Saxon lacks a word, we (on the German side of the border) have the tendency to borrow a German word, and on the other side of the border they would certainly prefer to borrow a dutch word. The language fell apart a long time ago. In fact most people in Germany do not even know that there is a Low Saxon language on the other side of the border. When I think about the two different versions of the Norse wikipedia that are made for one single country and when I think about the Aromunian wikipedia, I think that having a separate wikipeda for nds-nl is the best option. HeikoEvermann 11:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually we are unifying the spelling (to the spelling according to Sass) whereever we find differences. The only real exception that we list alternative spellings for the title of the article in the first paragraph and we sometimes provide redirects from alternative spellings to the main article. But the article itself should follow Sass. HeikoEvermann 10:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • In fact this fact has no relevance whatsoever. Being a native speaker has not been a prerequisite for working on any wikipedia. I am not a native English speaker either and yet I have made contributions to en.wikipedia.org. HeikoEvermann 21:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what shall we try first? I looked for a comparison in English language and I would say, that nds-de and nds-nl are as far apart in pronounciation and in spelling as modern English and the 1400 example of middle English in en:Middle English (this isn't the best comparison because one is a parallel development and the other serial, but the best example I found). If it were possible I really would like and want one Wikipedia for both. But it would be very hard to understand. Sure, if there would be a common orthography neither based singly on German nor on Dutch, this would be easier, but there is no such common orthography that is in broader use. The actual reality is, that we need two Wikipedias. --Slomox 16:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • strong support. there's nothing like unity in diversity :-) oscar 00:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • support. Maybe we should count the votes now? Guaka 20:49, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • 5 7 people willing to work on it, 2 3 4 5 other people's support, 1 generally support and
      • 1 2 3 4 non-DLS speakers oppose.
        • Well, if it's so relevant who is and isn't DLS speakers of OPPOSING votes, perhaps we should count the same for support votes? Out of all the massive amazing 12 supporters, a whopping 2 of them are real native speakers. 2-0 is not a good enough consensus for any WP's creation, so I suggest you don't exclude the opinions of non-speakers as it's to your disadvantage, especially since the issues we raise are very real and rather than completely denying the possibility of WPs in DLS varieties, we are merely proposing it in a different framework. --Node ue 07:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • support Arbeo 18:46, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • 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.) --Chamdarae 17:43, 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. - 81.70.91.207 22:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands have in common that their spelling is based on the Dutch spelling, while the spellings used in Germany are based on the German spelling. Best example is the use of capitals for nouns, almost everybody in Germany who writes in Low Saxon uses it, while in the Netherlands almost no one uses it. Dinsdagskind 18:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - The people who keep this wikipedia back are not even Low Saxon, so please get a live! Bart v.d. Heij 12:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Bart van der Heij, please understand that the reason for opposing this is not that I don't think Low Saxon dialects should have Wikipedias. Rather, it is that I think it is too broad and imaginary of a grouping. I advocate for separate Wikipedias for example Veluws, Gronings, Stellingwerfs. So I do support Wikipedias in Dutch Low Saxon varieties, but not as it is sorted in this proposal. Node ue 02:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've moved it back. There is only one native speaker willing to work on it at this time, and there is no consensus for its creation, so this request can not be granted. Tuf-Kat 15:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've moved it back, there is a consenses, two native speakers. Servien 17:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Servien, apparently you don't know the meaning of consensus. There are currently 12 people who agree to the creation of a " Dutch-Low Saxon " Wikipedia, and 3 who think it's better to have Wikipedias for individual dialects. I imagine that if you propose to have a Veluws Wikipedia, you will have consensus very quickly. But 12-3 is not consensus. Besides, many of the supporters are users of German-Low Saxon who are just saying "oh yes there's a spelling difference" without know about dialect problems in the Netherlands, or Dutch people saying "oh yes it's a regional language" without recognising the immense issue of dialects which Servien seems to want to ignore by filling up a so-called "Dutch Low Saxon" Wikipedia with his native Veluuws. --Node ue 02:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that 12-3 is not consensus. And only Servien claims here to be a native speaker -- if there are more, then those people need to notate that. Tuf-Kat 03:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I now oppose, making this even less of a consensus at 12-4. I may support if someone can take the time to convince me that there is a standard method of writing that can be called "Dutch Low-Saxon". Tuf-Kat 03:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see a fourth objection here? There are only 3 (Node ue, Tuk-Kat and anonymous)... Node ue was already listed, besides he doesn't even speak DLS. As mentioned before Servien is (N) and Bart is (N)... two natives.... I think 12-3 is a consenses, there is a very good indication DLS is a much wanted Wiki, the people who object are not even DLS or even speak it, I don't even think they should have a say, if they know the language that's a different case, making several dialect wiki's is just too much, you'll have to create Noord-Veluws, Oost-Veluws, Grunnings, Twents, Aachterhoeks, Sallaands, Stellingwarfs, Suud-Drenths, Midden-Drents, Veenkoniaols, Westerwolds, Twents-Graofschaps, Urks etc. BTW: Samogitian (Žemaitėška), Banyumasan don't even have 5 people willing to work on it nor are they native, how does that work. Servien 08:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC) Julle koppies werkie lekkerie![reply]
              • Oops, I miscounted. It is 12-3, and now that Bart has indicated his nativeness, it has two native speakers. Banyumasan has two native speakers and no opposition, so there is clearly consensus for that. There is no consensus here. If you actually attempted to convince me that there is a method of writing called "Dutch Low-Saxon", I'm still open to supporting, but arguing over consensus won't make it so. I for one would have no qualms about a dozen or more different dialectical Low Saxon wikis. Tuf-Kat 10:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hi again Tuf-Kat. It's actually 13-3, one person generally supports it, but anyway, in the procedures it states that there should be at least 5 willing to work on it, it doesn't say if the wiki should be blocked if some non-native people have doubts about it. (Some aren't even surprised about Node ue, he's kind of got a reputation *not meaning to be rude or anything, but kind of does concerning new wiki's*) The nds-wiki, already exist which covers for most of the German LS dialects, so it's proven it can work. This means that the DLS user don't have anywhere to go besides the Dutch wiki for now, different wiki's for each dialect would be kind of impossible, this way the smaller dialects don't have a place to go and the problem isn't solved yet, a common writing system for articles can be thought of by the community, these are small differences, plus each dialect having a large amount of ways to write. So that's why I wanted to create the DLS wiki. Servien 12:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • OK, first of all, what you said about me is VERY wrong. This is the first and so far the only request for a new Wikipedia that I have explicitly opposed. I have supported, or abstained from, all other requests for new Wikipedias, to the point that it irritates some people who would rather not have Wikipedias in languages like Gothic, Cantonese, or Ladino. Second of all. The existing NDS-WP is not working for "most of the German LS dialects". Currently, it's written in North LS of Hamburg area, including dialects like Schleswig-Holstein, East Frisian LS... but nevertheless it is difficult for speakers of other dialects, such as Westphalian, Eastphalian, Mennonite Low Saxon, LS dialects of Poland... etc. So unlike your horrid proposal, it serves based on a real linguistic boundary instead of a national boundary --Node ue 08:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Actually Tuf-Kat was right - the vote now stands at 12-4. Servien, please don't take my words out of context. If my meaning wasn't clear before, I'll make it clear now. I oppose don't fully support having a wikipedia covering all Low Saxon languages in the Netherlands. Before I was actually trying to find some kind of consensus where there clearly was none - although on some matters I think we can agree. Because even the supporters of this proposal agree there is no genuine linguistic basis to it. There are, of course orthographic differences between Low Saxon varieties in the Netherlands and Germany, but then there are also orthographic differences within the Netherlands too. They are often treated as separate languages, both by their speakers as well as by many linguists. Is there any evidence that speakers of Gronings, Stellingwerfs, or other varieties are interested in working on this project? No. Quite the opposite. The two languages I mentioned have both been requested separately (albeit without much support at this stage). What I recommend you do is create a wiki for Veluws. If you find speakers of other Low Saxon varieties who support your plans, include them. If speakers of all the main varieties of "DLS" become interested and there's no significant opposition from other speakers, call it "Dutch-Low Saxon" if you want. But if some of them want to have separate wikis, let them. There's no reason why there can't be successful wikis in multiple varieties of Low Saxon. I support having a Veluws wikipedia. --Chamdarae 17:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think I'm not even gonna bother anymore this is getting really irritating, people blocking the creation who don't even speak it, I'm not gonna bother creating a Veluws, Stellingwarfs or Grunnings wiki because there won't be enough support for that individually. There is a German nds wiki so why shouldn't there be a Dutch nds wiki, this is kind of discriminating. Servien 17:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Listen, Servien. There's a great test-wiki now written in Veluws! Keep writing articles like these and things will be fine. There are many people who will support you. I will even try to write an article (at least a stub) on Ny-Seelaand or Koreaons something. In time I'm sure there will be a large community working on this wiki. Actually calling it "Dutch-Low Saxon" won't necessarily help, because there's no clear support at this stage from speakers of other Low Saxon varieties. Maybe I was a little harsh just before, but I objected to my words being taken out of context. My intention is not to block a wiki being formed - I hope one is formed as soon as possible - but I have *never* supported one covering all Low Saxon languages used in the Netherlands. --Chamdarae 18:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Hi Chamdarae, there is actually a support for the DLS wiki from Twents and Grunnings etc. there's only one anonymous person who created the seperate wiki's. I don't actually feel much for only a Veluws wiki, don't think it will help much, there are not that much people speaking Veluws nowadays, there are more Grunnings and Stellingwarfs and Twents etc. Seperately the wiki's will never comprise of many articles, together they probably/hopefully will, if you'd create a seperate wiki for Veluws etc. you'll have for example about 15 articles, and together about 100/150. Servien 18:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Servien, this seems to me to be an unnessecarily grim outlook. I don't know for sure how many people speak a variety of Veluws, but I think it's somewhere between 100.000 and 500.000. There are already quite a few people on the internet who can speak Veluws. You have certainly already written plenty of Test WP articles. If a "Dutch Low Saxon" WP will only ever have a total of 150 articles, I don't think it's worth creating. I think that is a grim prediction -- Wikipedias in languages like Faroese or Basque already have many more than that. With a little work, I think a Veluws-only WP would do quite nicely. --Node ue 07:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • It was just an example... but anyway, I think it's best to stick with nds-nl, which is an actual language (not a dialect). The code can be changed, no problem, it's not actually called Dutch-Low Saxon, just Low Saxon (Nedersaksisch) but since there are two completely different versions of Low Saxon (Dutch and German; in German it's actually called Plattduutsch only the official ISO-code is nds)... the prefix nds (Nedersaksisch) is more often used in The NL. But anyway this wiki has the least objections, creating seperate dialect wiki's is not a good thing if you ask me. Servien
    • Seperate dialect wiki's are no option this will be too much and everyone will want one. Sticking to the original situation is kind of pointless. Like to know what the best solution would be. Servien 16:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a bit late, but I also do support Nijman N (of course as a native speaker).
    • I still don't think having a wiki in Nedersaksisch is the ideal option, but if native speakers support it, I won't block it. I hope that it can help all the Low Saxon dialects / languages in the Netherlands. --Chamdarae 13:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The "Nedersaksisch" dialects of the Netherlands maybe cover 1/10 of the area of the Low Saxon dialects in Germany - there is no reason why they not should not fit into a common Wikipedia. I am willing to contribute. I hate it when people from other continents (15-year old schoolboys) are pretending they know better. Frünn 21:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And how would you know better than me, seeing as you're not a native speaker? Does being from the Netherlands or Germany somehow make you an infinitely deep well of Lowlands Saxon knowledge? Or are you the one who's pretending to know better? --Node ue 05:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If this Wikipedia is created, how do you plan to solve the problem of dialects? --Node ue 06:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Articles written should be categorised as "Grunnings artikel" etc. as Arbeo suggested, the interface will be translated in more than one dialect and there should be links like e.g. "taol" will also have a "spraok" redirect depends on what the article is written in. BTW thanks for all the support so far. Servien 08:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem a satisfactory solution. As I noted elsewhere, it is likely that one dialect will come to dominate. Dialects with more speakers, will have more articles. Thus, dialects like Stellingwerfs will come out under-represented. Already, you have done a disservice to the NDSNL WP before its creation by replacing all uses of the word "sproak" (and "streektersproak") with the word "toal" (and "streektoal"), even though the article is still labled as written in Grunegers. With regards to support. If all issues like this are clearly resolved, I will change my vote to support. I will only do it begrudgingly, though, because your attitude has been one that you want to ignore all opposition and shove your request through the door without answering to the concerns people have, and such an attitude is clearly a bad thing on ANY Wikipedia, let alone a brand-new one. --Node ue 10:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and you have totally ignored the fact that "nedersaksisch"/"nedersassich" is also used in Germany to a certain extent. To rename your request "nedersaksisch" is to make it totally ambiguous. The response to it is "We already have a Nedersassisch Wikipedia". Even the linguistically inaccurate "Dutch Low Saxon" is better to distinguish it from the existing ndswp. --Node ue 10:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have ALSO ignored the fact that in Tweants, it's called Neersassies. Again that raises the HUGE issue of dialect disunity. --Node ue 01:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The term Plattduutsch is actually used in Germany, the term Nedersaksisch is almost never used in Germany, the makers of the nds wiki reportedly named it Nedersassisch because of Dutch speakers. I can't remember changing articles with sproak/taol... but anyway... this was not my intension and certainly won't happen agains. Just for info sakes... there are more Stellingwarfs speakers than Veluws or Sallands so don't think there will be less in that dialect... but we get your point you're against it, but most are not, you know how a democracy works non, majority rule accepted. If you're so against this wiki I'd like to invite you to request all the dialect wiki's seperately, you won't find very much support for it. (which is actually an understatement) - Servien 'n Goeje naom veur joe sol Seurpiet wesen, jy kan beheurlik krimmenere op s'n Stellingwarfs!
Servien (or maybe I'll call you Seurpiet -- I'm not totally illiterate, you know, I can read LS to at least that degree), I thought you were in the NEtherlands? How do you know anything about Germany? I thought I can't know anything about your language, so how can you know anything about theirs? The fact of the matter is, "Neddersassisch" in Platt can refer to the language, and I have seen it used that way more than a few times. Platt is more common, yes, but "Neddersassisch" occurs as well. You did change "sproak" to "taol", just see the history in your test-wp article about Zeeuws. Wikimedia is not a complete democracy. Consensus, not just a majority, is required. Currently there is no consensus. 15-3 is not consensus. 15-0, 15-1, or _maybe_ 20-2 is consensus. The intention is that a group cannot push their wish through when there is significant opposition. Currently, the opposition is still relatively significant. This is not counting the people who voted "support" for the existing dialect proposals but did not vote here, such as Gerard M. or the two other anon users. --Node ue 01:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, when you say "neddersassisch" in Germany that means "coming from Niedersachsen", but nobody will think of the language Plattdüütsch. Överklook is slimmer as tumpig (Plattdeutsches Sprichwort) Arbeo 16:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Arbeo, I'm talking about in Platt, not in German. If you think that nobody ever uses "neddersassisch" to refer to the language, you must not read about it very much as I have seen it occur quite a bit in literature from Germany. Specifically, Platt refers to Lowlands Saxon and East Low German; thus when one wishes to exclude East Low German they should use the term "Neddersassisch". --Node ue 01:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Moin Node ue, du snackst nich op Platt sünnern op Engelsch (un ik glööv dat du blauts dat richtig kunns). Over dat is ok egool. Ik hebb dat nich in't Internet leesen, sünnern twinnich joohr in Noorddüütschland leevt un düsse Spraak snackt. Worum glöövst du blauts jümmers dat du aans beter weet as de Lüüd de dor leeven wo de Sprook snackt woord, ok wenn du in'n heelen annern deel vunn de Welt leevt? Wenn de Lüüd seggt dat dat so löpen waard, worum mutt du denn noch jümmers seggen dat du liekers aans beter weet ? Blauts eene Froog noch: wat 'ne "Literatur" hest all leesen? Vertell mi mol de naam vunn düsse Bökers un denn künnt wi wieder snacken! Arbeo 23:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the first time somebody said something to me in Platt (or fernsehplatt, as in your case) expecting me to not understand. I will not dignify the first part of your message with a reply (up to ~liekers aans beter weet) because in my opinion, it is totally irrelevant, though I will make the comment that just because you have lived for a long time in a minority language area, does not mean you know every single word of it. Now, as to your question. http://dot.kde.org/1053201681/1053212548/1053212857/ Kenneth Christiansen says "Ik kom ut Denemark un ik snaak ok Neddersassisch. Het is 'n spraak un het is tou vergelyken mit Nedderlands." To be totally fair, he is Danish rather than German. You should also try searching the Lowlands-l archive. Quotes from it include "wi hebbt "klöven" orrer "opklöven" in Neddersassisch , wat nipp un nau datsülvige bedüden deit", "Man- ick weyt ouk ne recht, wat 'n opp Neddersassisch 'Karvdeer' seggen schull; mi dycht, wat dat nyms begriepen deyt", etc. Note that these are both from Germans. And as I noted before, "platt" is imprecise and includes East Low German as well as Lowlands Saxon, while "neddersassisch" is more precise, referring exclusively to Lowlands Saxon. --Node ue 21:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added a choice for the ISO code... and put it in bold... does anyone know any better ones? Serv
No unofficial ISO codes are acceptable because of the possibility of future conflicts with real ISO codes. So, it can't be a two or three letter code. Tuf-Kat 04:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tuf-Kat... I've e-mailed the ISO code "commission", asking the official code for Low Saxon spoken in the Netherlands. So I don't know if they'll reply but anyway, I've removed the other 2- and 3-letter codes and again added nds-nl. Serv
ISO codes are only for languages, they don't make any distinction at all about writting; so ther will never be a different code for "dutch" and "german" spellings of Low Saxon (there are languages with much bigger differences, like different scripts (eg; latin/arabic, etc) that just have to use the same iso code for all writting variants.
  • Support Low Saxon is clearly a distinct language. Its speakers in the Netherlands must be given the same treatment as Low Saxon speakers in Germany. Raetius 13:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Raetius, nobody is arguing that it's not distinct. The problems here are: 1) Whether its "dialects" are too distinct; and 2) Whether or not the Low Saxon of the Netherlands is a different language from the Low Saxon in Germany. Rather than provide detailed explanations or discussions about either, the unscrupulous proposers of this new Wikipedia choose instead to only answer "yes" or "no" and to tell the people asking these questions that their opinions are irrelevant, and have done so from the beginning. When you request a Wikipedia that is quite obviously divided directly along national borders, you should expect some opposition and be ready to answer people's questions in detail rather than blowing them off.--Node ue 09:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
VOTING ON ISO CODE: Please vote on which ISO-code to use for Nedersaksisch (NL).
a) nds-nl; b) qnds; c) ndsn; d) gem-nds; e) other... (voting closes Saterday, 22nd of October at ±18:00 (CEST)) - Servien 16:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
b and c are both unusable. Developers will not create new Wikipedias without using an ISO-sanctioned code. Since there is no such thing as a Dutch Low Saxon language, there is no ISO code nor Ethnologue code. Usually, when no ISO code exists, an Ethnologue code is used in the format "roa-rup" or "mis-ain". Realistically, though, the only option is "nds-nl" as "gem-nds" includes Germany, and the other options are not real ISO codes. --Node ue 21:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
each of b, c, d are not options. None of them is backed by RFC 3066 - no ISO 639 code AND not published by iana. (Both gem and nds are correct codes, yet inappropriate each, plus you cannot combine them in the way indicated, as per RFC 3066). That → leaves nds-NL which is both correctly built and apropriate.
• Btw. if nds-NL should be further subdivided by dialect, those ones being spoken most predominatly in areas coinciding closely enough with any of the Dutch provinces, could be coded as nds-NL-DR (Drente), nds-NL-FR (Friesland), nds-NL-GE <;small>(Gelderland), nds-NL-GR (Groningen), … etc. with the standard abbreviations commonly used in Netherlands since these have been registered with the ISO as regional subdivisions under country code NL. I cannot tell wether or not dialect use borders do match province borders.
• Note also that, with nds-DE, only nds-DE-HB (Bremen), and nds-DE-HH (Hamburg) are usable, because nds dialect borders elsewhere in Germany almost allways do not at all coincide with federal state borders; there is no point in using these two. German government unfortunately failed to register a set of region codes of finer granularity, though they have a suitable system (being used on car license plates) that is published, and well known to the public --Purodha Blissenbach 23:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PB, ISO/DIS 639-3 codes can be used, f.ex vel.
Since there isn't much to vote on anymore, the current nds-NL is the only choice, unless someone has a better code. Servien
As I noted before, "neddersaksisch" is imprecise. Just because you are the proposer does not give you licence to change the most important details of the request after people have already voted. How do you know that people who voted "support" will maybe support a Wikipedia called "Dutch Low Saxon" but not one called "Neddersaksisch", or vice-versa? No matter how you try to skew it, this proposal is for a Wikipedia for the Lowlands Saxon dialects of the Netherlands, and the title should reflect that directly in the title of the request, clearly and unambiguously.
Also, somebody keeps insisting on changing the number of oppose votes to "1 or 2" instead of 3. Now, there are 3 solid oppose votes: Chamadrae, Node, and the anonymous user. Please do not vandalise this page.
Nedersaksisch isn't imprecise, there are various ways of pronouncing them (I don't know of ones with "Nedder-" most are "Neder" or "Neer"... like you mentioned Twents uses Neersassies... this phenomenon occures in many Nds dialects, "leem'm" instead of "leven", most of the time it's written as "leev'n" or just "leven", the same goes for Twents Nî'e'-sâ'sisch there will probably be differences in Twents even, one writes it as Neersassisch other Neersassies yet another Nedersaksisch etc.
"Also, somebody keeps insisting on changing the number of oppose votes to "1 or 2" instead of 3. Now, there are 3 solid oppose votes: Chamadrae, Node, and the anonymous user. Please do not vandalise this page."
Are you insisting I changed the votes :o? (I only changed it from 1/2 to: oppose 1 or 2 like I did to all outstanding requests since it was noted as such). OFF TOPIC: 3 solid votes, Chamdarae doesn't oppose nor support he is quoted as saying: doesn't fully support.
I'd opt for nds-nl Arbeo 17:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TITLE: The title has to be changed anyway because "Netherlands Low Saxon" is English which is not an official language in the Netherlands. As explained above Nedersaksisch would do just fine, but just in case someone decides to change it back to the most incorrect form besides Dutch-Low Saxon. (In case there are too many different forms; of which I'm unaware at the moment, the Dutch spelling is used not the English since it's spoken in a Dutch speaking country) Servien

Chamdarae mentioned his should can be count as neutral, see: User talk:Servien. (recount let to 17 support [not including Chamdarae of course]) Servien 10:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CONCLUSION: seperate Nedersaksisch dialect wiki's have just as much/or even more oppose-votes and have lesser support-votes. De kreaotie van disse wiki duurt noe al ongeveer 'n halv jaor, hoelang motten de minsen nog waachten ±een jaor, meschien...? Meschien wel nog laanger, de procedure is so reer hier, 'n nye anvraog wurdt drek eaksepteerd en 'n anvraog van 'n halv jaor geleden staot nog steeds in de waacht... hmmm. Servien 15:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Uhh... remind me how long this request was around to garner 17 support votes? And how long has the Veluws req been around? These things don't happen instantly. I think also that Belgian Man may reconsider. --Node ue 14:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes you may... it's been around about 1 week longer than "Grunningers" etc, but Veluws has been around for a short time and has already had 3 against votes, 1 vote against for a very silly reason if you ask me, after excluding Sallaands Belgian Man didn't vote for the wiki either. Veluws has just as much "against votes" (which will only get more) than this wiki, only you and one anonymous user against this wiki, I don't think this is a good reason to not approve it. (besides who decides what goes through and what doesn't? If more people have moved this page to approved and only Node moves it back then obviously there is something wrong, shouldn't there be a proper "approval commission"?) Besides 2 votes, one voted for orthography this can be easily solved. You like to see dialect wikis, well the truth is you can't always have your way monsieur, c'est la vie, most people don't want dialect wikis (since this isn't a dialect atlas). Servien 11:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1) Veluws has 2 against votes. 2) "which will only get more" -- that's awfully pessimistic of you, you have no way of knowing that. 3) Two oppose votes vs. 17 support votes is a very good reason to not put it on the "approved requests" page. So far, only requests with 1 or fewer oppose votes have been moved there. For anything else, you'd need a much bigger ratio, like 30-2. And I don't apply a double standard -- I moved Riparian back here too, even though I support that request. 4) "Most people don't want dialect wikis" -- then why did 7 people vote in favour of a so-called "dialect wiki"?? --Node ue 22:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • 1) Actually 3 oppose votes (Raetius is against aswell), it's been around for a short time, this wiki has 2 and has been around for almost half a year. 2) It is pessimistic, but it's the truth, a Veluws wiki doesn't solve our initial problem and doesn't have much support. Besides you won't find many native speakers since it's a small dialect, and most people speak Dutch nowadays (check out "VELUWE" in your atlas), these people are mostly elderly people or Dutch neo-Veluws level 2/3 speakers. (someone mentioned Aachterhoeks in the stats, this is not even close to the Veluwe, Salland could be counted since Sallaand it's close. I'm curious to which website this is...) 3) It gets more and more with you, first it was 20 now it 30 next week 40, ammehoela! Most requests haven't even had so much support so I think this is a unique case 4) Because you're blocking this wiki, and most people are getting really annoyed with you just like I am getting now, when you know more about Nedersaksisch/Veluws let me know! Houje: Servien 12:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC) à propos... do anonymous users with 6 edits even count? :s[reply]
            • I agree that there is a consensus that this wiki should be created. There is 90% support if the anon voter is counted, which should be plenty. That's well more than is required for any other decision on the wiki. Tuf-Kat 19:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fnorp
Node has been praising dialect wikis to such an extent that he keeps on blocking the nds-NL wiki which most people actually want. Node doesn't seem to get that these languages are so different that it's just not possible to combine them it's like English and Middle English as said earlier, also a majority of its members are not very keen on the idea of Dutch members contributing to the German-nds wikipedia, as it is later again "Germanised" (but I'm not going to continue about this, it has been discussed!) On the nds-wiki it also states it's only for Low Saxon-Germany (and East-Germany as well which doesn't even fall under nds.) I think everything which should have been discussed has been discussed, and most agree that the wiki should be created soon, Arbeo has asked on the wikitech-l mailing list for its creation, Node keeps on removing the request from the approved page, this is nonsense, it's been approved and just confirms to me your immaturity. Servien 11:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(also see comments at: Veluws) Oppose dialect, no langage -220.149.85.57

You can't vote once it is approved (duh) the explaination is also incorrect Bart v.d. Heij 09:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1) There is no rule stating this. It is my contention that users should be able to vote on any request at any time before the creation of the Wikipedia. After its creation though, they'd have to start a proposal to lock it. 2) What is a language, and what is a dialect, is a subjective matter. Some people would say Asturian is a dialect of Spanish, others would say it's a separate language. Currently, the European charter for minority languages specifies "Low Saxon", spoken in both Germany and the Netherlands -- not as separate languages. --Node ue 22:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Node I can garanty you on behalf of me and Bart, that Low Saxon spoken in the Netherlands and Germany are definately not regarded as one and the same language by either its speakers or by linguists, this is due to the fact the both hang onto the major language in their own countries, thus Low Saxon in Germany is mostly heavily influenced by German, in the Netherlands it is influenced by Dutch, comparing these languages is like comparing Dutch and German, to you Dutch and German might also look alike but this is definately not the case for the speakers, most of the time Germans cannot understand Dutch eventhough they pick up some words, Dutch people tend to understand German easier because they've learned the language. The European charter also doesn't state Low Saxon is a minority language, it states the Low Saxon variaties as spoken in the Netherlands are a language, in Germany the language has no official status, the effect being that a German variaty which doesn't have an official status has a wikipedia and the Low Saxon language in the Netherlands, with an official status, doesn't. The German variaty and the Dutch variaty are mostly not mutually comprehensible with exeptions allong the border, the problem is that the main dialect used is way more inland "Hamburg" dialect I believe, trying to combine these variaties is like combining the Dutch and German wikipedia, sure we would have a lot of articles but the point of an encyclopedia is that the articles are actually understood, this is not the case with nds-wiki where the average Low Saxon user in the Netherlands will not understand 80% of its articles. The Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands are also relatively close to one another, I've personaly communicated with a Twents speakers in Veluws and there were no communication problems at all. Please explain to me why you're so against this wiki, you have not yet come up with a point which is an actual problem, I know you like the dialect wikis but as you've seen with the requests for the seperate dialects, most other users do not. Groetnis: Servien 16:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1) Well, if they're regarded as separate languages, what are they called? I could only find references to "Lowlands Saxon", "Low Saxon", referring to both countries. Even searching common German and Dutch words (Plattdeutsch, Niedersachsisch, Nedersaksisch...), all of the websites said it was _a language_ (not two languages) spoken in Germany and the Netherlands.
2) Comparing your so-called "dutch low saxon" with so-called "german low saxon" is most definitely not like comparing German with Dutch. There are some very minor differences, namely spelling and influence (especially in vocabulary) from German or Dutch, but this is largely limited to the technical domain.
3) Dutch and German don't look the same to me. Do French and Spanish look the same to you? There are some very obvious differences between the two, and this is compounded by the fact that as an educated speaker of English, I can accurately guess the meanings of perhaps 30% of Dutch and German vocabulary. Dutch and German are obviously quite different languages -- "ik" in Dutch, "ich" in German; "dag" = "tag", and that's only the beginning, there are lots more. But there are no similar differences between "Dutch Low Saxon" and "German Low Saxon" -- "ik" = "ik". There are no grammatical or morphological differences, only differences in spelling and to a small degree in vocabulary aswell.
4) I think you'd better check again. Regardless of whether or not a language is recognised by a country, it can be recognised at the level of Europe.
5) You claim that having, say, Hamboergsch and Gronings in the same Wikipedia is like combining Dutch and German. That's a ridiculous claim. There are, according to nearly all sources I can find, 4 main dialect groups of LS: Northern LS, Westphalian, Eastphalian, and Schleswigian. Northern LS is shared between Hamburg and much of the rest of N. Germany, and the Netherlands. Can you give me a single isogloss that goes along the national border?
6) If you can't understand "German Low Saxon", you're not trying at all. Every single day, speakers of LS from both countries exchange e-mails in the language on lowlands-l with little difficulty. Other than some spelling differences, and "et" and "en" vs "de" and "und", there aren't really any huge differences. This point is PROVEN by the fact that you posted a message to the talkpage of nds.wiki in "Dutch Low Saxon", which was understood perfectly by the Germans, who responded with messages in "German Low Saxon", which was understood perfectly by you (and ultimately led to this request). You claiming that they can't be understood is an outright lie.
7) I've come up with quite a few reasons why this WP should not be created. You have been rude from the very beginning, and have ignored or rebuked my attempts at compromise. --Node ue 00:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shortly... they're called Plattdüütsch and Nedersaksisch, under Dutch influence sometimes called Nedersachsisch, secondly read your charter all your info is in there. Thirdly, as an expert and native speaker you should know all about the language haah, you make me laugh, you're so funny *NOT*! Fourth, you better check your sources again, on the Dutch and German wiki they are are divided by Dutch and German variaties, there might be four dialect groups which they've been divided in in the year 1601, but hey what do you know it's 2005! May be the word "ik" is the same but that's about it, I've talked to mit-Nedersaksen in NL and they see the wiki the same way we Dutch do, like a foreign language which is definately not own, most don't even understand the introduction on the main page. You know I'm get really gatvol of your stupid unmeaningful comments, every day... hmm well you have to speak German to understand, mine isn't that good, monsieur excuse me, but I'm not going to study another language to communicate in my own, think of it you'll have to speak French first to be able to read in English! Secondly when I wrote my comments everyone told me they did not understand a word I said, Dutch users get this more often the once (most likely Veluws, Drents, Sallands, Stellingwerfs, Zuid-Gelders, Overijssels, Achterhoeks en gao so mer deur!) Everytime I read your comments I read "blablabla" no new stuff, jy haolt ouwe koeien uut de sloot. Please get a life and learn some Veluws or Drents or whatever. Besides aren't people only allowed to vote when they're 18?! Servien 08:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this before. 1) Any sites or books talking about either "Plattdüütsch" or "Nedersaksisch" say that this language is spoken in 2 countries. Many German sources call it "Nedersaksisch" or "Nedersassisch", especially books. In Hochdeutsch, it's sometimes called "Niedersächsisch". 2) Why don't you read the charter? 3) What? 4) Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source even by itself. I used a number of books, not Wikipedia, including the widely praised Das neue Duden-Lexikon which was published in 1999. 5) Well, you want I should make an entire swadesh list? The only real difference is orthography. For example, the GLS "vör" is written "veur" in DLS, "hööft" -> "heufd", "nedersaksisch"/"nedersassisch" -> "nedersaksisch", "köninkriek" -> "keuninkryk", "tesaom'n" -> "tesaamen", "schriefwiese" -> "schryvwyse". 6) I'm tired of your personal attacks. If you want to tell me you don't like what I have to say, or you think I don't know what I'm talking about, go ahead and say it. But don't call me names. --Node ue 21:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we have been over this and I'm going to ignore your nonsense comments from now on, first of all it's not called Nedersaksisch anywhere in Germany, second of all please leave the judging over to people who have knowledge about this (no not your book-knowledge, but REAL LIFE)! ...again CHARTER, it's an official language Plattduutsch isn't.
1) I have given you proof that it is in fact called Nedersaksisch in Germany, which you have all but ignored. Just because you read somewhere that "It's called Plattdüütsch in Germany" doesn't mean that's 100% true. "Plattdüütsch" (sometimes shortened to "platt") refers to LS + "East Low German", and is definitely the predominant name in Germany. There are plenty of websites (including lowlands-l.net) written in "GLS" which call it "Nedersaksisch" or "Nedersassisch". 2) The only people who have voted here who have "real knowledge" about it are yourself and Bart van der Heij, who I actually think might be your sockpuppet. 3) The charter doesn't just mention official languages; besides LS in Germany has certain areas where it is given treatment as a minority language.


"vör" is written "veur" in DLS, "hööft" -> "heufd", "PLATTDUUTSCH"/"nedersassisch" (dutchism) -> "Nedersaksisch" (capital), "köninkriek" -> "keuninkryk", "tesaom'n" -> "SAOMEN", "schriefwiese" -> "schryvwyse". 6) I'm tired of your personal attacks.

Yes that is correct, these are a FEW words, but you can't build on this, just except it from a native speaker I don't understand **** from that socalled wikipedia, this is not the intention of a wiki, that is why the wiki has so little Dutch people in its community!! Ik wur' so esteurd van al die onsinnige troep die'j loopt rond te verspreiden, jy kump nie ees uut Europa en jy dink drek da'j alles van onse taol en kultuur en alles afweet! I have never called you names, which I should but I don't! I'm sure you're a nice person (when you're asleep?) but your VERY annoying, I'm not the only one who seems to think that! Groetnis van 'n Nederlaandse gebruker die gien sin heet um op 'n Duutse wikipedie syn bydraogen te leveren an iets waor niemand wat an heet, umdat sy der gien ene hol van begrypen. Servien 09:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, why not give a few examples of words that are truly different? If you don't understand "****", there are other solutions to that problem besides making a new Wiki -- two pages for each topic, a spelling converter, using an in-between spelling... the list goes on. No other WP was created just because somebody spells a few words differently. And let's see, "Ik wurrt zo estörrd vun al die onzinnige trup die'j loopt rond te verspreiden, de kump nie ees uut Europa en de dink drek da'j alles vun onze spraak un kultur un alles afweet!", and then "Grütens vun 'n Nedderlandsche gebrüker die gien zin heet um op 'n Düütsche Wikipedia sien biedraagn te leveren an its waar nimand wat an heet, umdat sie der gin ene hol vun begriepen"... don't think I don't understand you sörpit. --Node ue 10:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

strong support It looks like there is consensus that this wikipedia should be created, if I am not mistaken,only one person is very actively trying to block it. The NL-nedersaksische variants (I use the dutch spelling) are influenced by dutch spelling and vocabulary, and the DE-Platt variants are influenced by the German spelling and vocabulary, enough reason for a separate nds-nl wikipedia, IMHO. If a certain variant, like Gronings or Veluws, will be over-represented in the nds-nl wikipedia, we could split it off at a later point if desired. Hence strong support for an nds-nl wikipedia. Flyingbird 13:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • support As a native Twents speaker, I think there should be an NDS-NL Wikipedia covering all Dutch Low Saxon dialects at a minimum. I can understand the current Plattdüütsche Wikipedia, but that is only a consequence of having German in high school. It has been written over here that German Low Saxon and Dutch Low-Saxon are comparable (people from Hamburg able to understand people from Groningen and vice versa). This is true, although there may always be some differences which could led to understanding problems. The biggest issue however, is that Wikipedia is mainly a WRITTEN medium, not a SPOKEN one. The Dutch Low Saxon has been written for centuries with help of grammar and spelling normally used for the Dutch language, leading to big differences between written Dutch and German Low Saxon. Twents for example has been proven to resemble closer to Middle Dutch than Middle Low German. There are even quite some differences between for example Twents and Veluws, mainly in spelling, but not as big as between the Dutch and German Low Saxon. Creating a NDS-NL Wikipedia would be a good start to satisfy all native speakers of Dutch Low Saxon dialects. Tubantia 13:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newsflash: the article Node ue was so proud of, being about the only easily understandable article for Dutch users Noord-Veluws has been changed to Plattdüütsch, it is that I wrote it myself but otherwise wouldn't be able to understand most likely.)

Did you know that in some parts of the Netherlands, they call their dialect "Plat" or "Platduits"?? Anyhow that interesting factoid aside, please see this page. Sure, it was changed to German spellingg, but nobody altered the grammar. Word order is identical, and everything. Just words were respelled. You were trying to say that these languages have different words and grammar... if that's the case, why didn't they make more changes than just spelling??????????? --Node ue 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Developers may judge the differences for themselves, see: Wordlist in "Netherlands Low Saxon" dialect, Gronings and Corresponding wordlist in "German Low Saxon" dialect, Hamborgsch.

This list has been composed by a acquaintance of mine to show the few resemblances the languages all together have. As one can see most words are the same in all languages, then lets combine Dutch, Low Saxon, German and English and make it one wikipedia. Ooit eheurd van et woord "absurd"?
Not in English, they're not the same. Nor in German nor Dutch. --Node ue 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Murcian (Murciano)

  • ISO code: no ISO 639-2 code, "roa-mu" proposed.
  • Proposed domain: roa-mu.wikipedia.org
  • Relevant infos: language spoken in Murcia, at the south-east of Spain
  • Link to article(s) on the language in an existing Wikipedia: Murcian/Panotxo (in Catalan), Murciano (in Spanish), Murciano (in German).
  • Approximate number of speakers: 350.000
  • Location(s) spoken: Region of Murcia (Spain, Europe).
  • Closely related languages, if any: It's considered, by some linguists, as a transition language between Spanish and Catalan.
  • External links to organizations that promote the language: Llengua maere (in Murcian, and some extracts in Spanish and Catalan), Dialectological study about Murcian from University of Murcia (in Spanish)
  • Link to request on a mailing list:
  • Comments:
    • How distinct is Murcian from standard Castilian Spanish? It doesn't seem to be widely listed as a separate language...... However, there is strong support here from native speakers. Perhaps some examples of the language could help. --Chamdarae 18:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Llorca es una zudià i molecipio murciano con una pupulancia e mas e 80.000 habitantes, e los qualos cuasi 50.000 viven n'er centro i 30.000 esturreaos dentre los más e 60 caseríos d'er molecipio. Llorca amás tié'l termino molecipal mas jrande e to'l Estao Español, ansina ha·arribao a ser comparao'n grandaria con provincias como Guipúzcoa
      • There are links as enough as you can make your own opinion about this fact, specially in those articles from wikipedia. --Joanot 09:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to take issue with some of the information above. Although I come from the north of Spain and am not familiar with the linguistic situation in Murcia, I can assure you that murciano is regarded as a separate language by virtually nobody. The above figure of 3,500,000 speakers seems to be just the total population of the areas claimed by the proponents of the language. The funny thing is that 99% of those three and a half million people are probably unaware that they speak anything other than Spanish. Furthermore, there is no written standard for the dialect, and there are no newspapers or books, as far as I'm aware, in this "language". I do not know what the accepted policy for accepting a new language in Wikipedia is. Basically, if creating a Wikipedia in Bolivian Spanish or in Geordie English is regarded as acceptable, then a Wikipedia in Murciano may make sense. What worries me is that this seems like an attempt by a very small group of people to promote an as yet non-existent written standard of their regional form of speech, and they seem to have decided to use Wikipedia as a means to promote their questionable linguistic views. It is also quite suspicious that many of the users above have not made any contributions in the Wikipedias where they are registered. I will abstain from voting against it, though, because I am not sure what the rules and precedents for cases like this are. --AngelRiesgo 20:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's false. In Región de Murcia there are more than 1.300.000 inhabitants. Who are saying that there are 3.500.000? NOBODY
      • After I wrote the above comment, I've realised that the Murcian Wikipedia has already been approved, so it would have been too late to oppose it, anyway. It will be interesting to see how many people contribute to it. --AngelRiesgo 21:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And by the way, most of the "users" that supported the creation of this new wikipedia do not correspond to valid user names. The names Tomir, Mangas, Alba, GranayOro, Foro-fico and Alquerias Llibre link to non-existent user pages in the Spanish and Occitan wikipedias. And Iacin does not look like a registered user, although the User:Iacin page has been edited. Is there anything I am missing? How come a new Wikipedia is accepted when most of the votes for it are from bogus users? --AngelRiesgo 21:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because it had support and no opposition. I've moved it off the approved list. Tuf-Kat 00:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's false. There are real usernames of people who are interested in work at the murcian wikipedia. If this are the argument to refuse the murcian Wikipedia, not seems very honest reason --Assarbe 11:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually most of the alleged bogus users still do not have accounts in the wikipedias that they are claimed to have accounts in (the exception being Alquerias Llibre). They are not real usernames. Several of them do have accounts in meta, but except for Iacin they haven't made any edits - not even to add their usernames to this list. If they are real people they should sign in and support this request for themselves. --Chamdarae 19:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The bogus users are identified above. Most of the users were added either by one particular real user or from one particular IP address. Sockpuppetry won't get you a wikipedia. --Chamdarae 03:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hello, I signed as a member for the Murcian Wikipedia. I do not understand the reason why some people here have doubts about the members of this project, demostrate that I have the same IP address as other, you cannot because Iam a different user. I'm a native speaker of Murcian, and I strongly claim for the creation of a Wikipedia in my language. Many people like me will work in this project, please, do not doubt it! --Alquerias Llibre 21:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There were some obvious voting irregularities, and nothing has been done to fix this. If these are real people who want to support this wiki, they should log in and vote for themselves (just as you did), and use real usernames. --Chamdarae 19:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fully agree you. We are murcian speakers. Why can't we have and work in our language in our project? --Assarbe 12:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I don't think this request was particularly credible anyway. Murcian is really just a transitional dialect between Spanish and Catalan, and not a separate language. There's no need for it to have a wikipedia. --Chamdarae 03:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Therefore, murcian is not castilian and is not catalan. Besides, how many languages have their origin in other two or more languages? Not seems a hard argument --Assarbe 12:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps we could compare it to Scottish English, which is a variety of English with a strong Lallans Scots influence. It has characteristics of both languages, but is not itself a separate language by most definitions of the word. --Chamdarae 19:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose--Ecemaml 06:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC). I fully support Angel Riesco's comments above.[reply]
  • Oppose. To be consistent with my arguments, I think I must cast a no vote. I very much doubt that there is a case for a Murcian standard language. Even if there is, such a language should gain some currency in the Murcia region before it can have a Wikipedia. --AngelRiesgo 07:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you meanning that Murcian should have an official recognision from political authorities in Spain?? Here are a lot of unofficial languages with their own wikipedia edition. A very clear exemple is Occitan language, so as it's very close to Catalan language (I haven't learnt Occitan but I understand 90% almost) and it isn't official anywhere in France (in exception of Aranese variety in a only one comarca of Catalonia with 8.000 inhabitants). I'm agree with you that no reason I found about to create wikipedia editions such in andalusian/argentinian/canarian/US-Spanish, nor another similar comparision between linguistic varieties such Catalan/Valencian, Brazilian/Portuguese, US-English/UK-English/Australian English, etc. But in the case of Murcian is different, in spite of its unclear linguistic status, because I've no doubt that murcian have its own linguistic entity enough as dialect, as language, as lingua franca, as melting pot of several romanic languages, as ever as you wish. If there are few people talking it, or even it would be considered as a dead language, these aren't reasons to reject persons who would want to work an their proper encyclopaedia. Remember diversity. --Joanot 09:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with Joanot. There are too many languages without a standard normative and without recognison, but with an Wikipedia version. What's the matter now with the murcian? --Assarbe 12:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Official recognition is not the main issue, though it would certainly help. Recognition by linguists is more important (IMO), as it would suggest that a speech variety is distinct enough to be called a separate language. And it seems that most of the linguistic community treats Murcian as a dialect of Spanish. Searching google doesn't help much - "Murcian language" only gets 10 results - 8 of them related to wikipedia, and the other 2 reading "spanish-murcian language" and "Spanish: Murcian language". ("Llengua murciana" and "Lengua murciana" do get more results, but since a large proportion of modern linguistic material is in English, I would expect there to be more information in English online.) If Murcian could be shown to be a distinct language in some sense (eg. if it was mutually unintelligible with Castilian Spanish, had some kind of official recognition, or a was a well-established literary language), I might support it. But it doesn't look like it meets any of these criteria. It should be treated the same way as we'd treat a request for a wikipedia in Geordie or Scouse. --Chamdarae 19:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The distinction between languages and dialects is not a clear-cut one, and there are lots of grey areas. There has been strong opposition here to accepting wikipedias in Cantonese or Wu Chinese, which are probably more different from Mandarin than Spanish from Catalan or Portuguese. My opinion is that for a language to be accepted there should be some sense of linguistic community and an accepted written standard. I am not saying that this must necessarily be in the form of official recognition by certain local authorities, but there must be a community that claims to speak the language, and there must be some sort of written standard. For example, Portuguese textbooks say that Galician is a variety of the Portuguese language, but most people in Galicia feel that it is a separate language and there is indeed a standard way of writing Galician. Asturian and Aragonese have no official recognition within Spain, and used to be regarded as Spanish dialects in romance linguistics, but they are viewed as separate languages by many of their speakers and there is a certain literary tradition in both. Again, a sense of linguistic community exists, and there are Wikipedias in Galician, Asturian and Aragonese. The situation is much more complex in the case of Murcian. The claim that it is a separate language is quite new to me, and seems to be promoted by a very small number of people. My attitude towards it would have been much more positive if the people who want the Murcian Wikipedia had stated their claim with honesty, presenting it as a peculiar dialect of Spanish that is dying out and that a minority are struggling to preserve. Instead, they chose to make the outrageous claim that several million people speak the language in Murcia and in the adjacent regions, and they glossed over the fact that it is simply a dialect of Spanish in traditional romance linguistics. Anyone reading the information presented with the request was probably baffled that an obscure language with three million speakers is spoken in Spain. Not only that, but they even invented native speakers using bogus user names to present a deceptive image of widespread support for this supposed language. The figure of 3,500,000 has recently been edited and it has had a nought removed, probably ina an attempt to make it more credible. I would like to know where either figure comes from. They haven't even bothered to explain whether by Murcian they refer to panocho or to a broader dialect area. Such shameful antics have made me feel very strongly against this proposal. I said that they should try to promote the language within Murcia before creating a Wikipedia because as long as most Murcians are not even aware that there is a "Murcian language", I don't think a new Wikipedia should exist to accomodate a linguistic whim. The language community should exist before the Wikipedia, not the other way around. By the way, I cannot help being surprised by your support for the Murcian language. You come from the Valencia region and you know that there are people there who, probably for political rather than linguistic reasons, claim that Valencian is a separate language. According to your appeal to diversity, shouldn't you support a Valencian Wikipedia to make such people happy? Why not let anyone who claims to speak a language have their own Wikipedia, then? Some of the requests for languages here look like a joke. Now it turns out that there are tens of languages in places like Italy or Germany that deserve a Wikipedia. My opinion is that such wikipedias in languages that are not even known by their supposed speakers are not serious, and I can't see the point in accepting them. --AngelRiesgo 11:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I never have said that murcian is spoken by SEVERAL MILLIONS!!! (Has Región de Murcia that pupulation??)... o en castellano, para que me pueda expresar mejor. Nunca he dicho tal cosa. Me parece francamente mal que manipules la información que se está dando. Se dió la cifra de 300.000 personas que podrían entenderlo, no que lo hagan servir habitualmente. Y tu estás diciendo que falto a la verdad porque digo que hay 3.500.000 hablantes (no sabes contabilizar los puntos en las cifras? :) =. No se chico, no creo que sea yo quien esté faltando a la verdad.
If there are bogus users, it shouldn't be counted, I'm agree with you about it, don't worry. But I'm giving my entire attention only about the proposal on Murcian language. Here were a proposal about a Valencian wikipedia already and my opposition were shown then, of course. Those proposal finally gone out with any support, because Valencian particularities are welcome in Catalan wikipedia, even recommended and fomented in articles related with Valencian subjects.
Would be murcian "particularities" welcome in Spanish wikipedia? I don't think so. The valencian case and murcian aren't the same. In Catalan wiki there are articles with valencian words. I don't want to imaginate what would say the people in the Spanish wiki if I start to edit in murcian --Assarbe 12:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These bogus users are people interested in the edition of articles. They aren't invented people. If they can't support, well, would be deleted of the list, but there aren't "invented" people. --Assarbe 07:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming Murcian as separate language, and this proposal isn't stating anything about this linguistic status. In fact, the links to find information about Murcian language are in both sense, one stating as independent language, and another stating as Spanish dialect, in the way that every person can make their own opinion. Then I made my own opinion, and I've supported it so. Why?. Because I see Murcian is very dialectalished, it isn't as Andalusian nor Canarian, but I think that it the most distanced dialect from Spanish, not only because how it's pronounced, but also because its particularly lexicon and another reasons. The differences between Murcian and Stantard Spanish are very showy. Would be Murcian particularities welcome in Spanish Wikipedia?. I'm sure it isn't possible, because Murcian particularities are considered as "bizarre" by Spanish-speakers from outside Murcia. I'm Spanish-speaker too, and it's really hard to me accepting Murcian lexicon in Spanish Wikipedia. In Valencian case, it's opposed, particularities are welcome in Catalan wikipedia, because Valencian particularities aren't seen as a "bizarre form" from Catalonians or Majorquinian people who speaks Valencian/Catalan.
In the other side, the data about 3.500.000 were an edit from anonymous user after this approval, and the original data were 350.000, as I've restored it (the mention about geographical zone were post-edited too, and reverted so). I'm agree that wikipedia is not and has not to be a political tool to promote linguistic separatism, but also wikipedia has not to be a tool to keep down dying languages or dialects, if there are persons willing it to survive. --Joanot 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, Joanot, I think you're stretching things by claiming that there is some fundamental difference between, on the one hand, Murcian and standard Spanish and, on the other, other dialects and their respective literary languages. Whenever anyone from Valencia claims that Valencian is a different language from Catalan (because they have a different word for "grasshopper" or "screwdriver", or whatever), the usual retort from Catalans (with which I agree) is "go check any book about linguistics". Similarly, I have yet to see any book about linguistics or any encyclopaedia that backs the status of Murcian as a language. As for Murcian uses not being welcome in the Spanish Wikipedia, this happens with colloquialisms in general in any language. Users of English Wikipedia wouldn't accept in an article a sentence like "dat ain't got nuffin' a do wiv dis matta". Do you think rejecting such sentences is disparaging to the speakers of English dialects where such utterances are common? Will such speakers feel uncomfortable in the English Wikipedia? In my opinion, it is just that the standard written language has certain conventional rules. And this is the crux of the matter here: The proponent or proponents of a Murcian Wikipedia want to establish a standard written language based on an amalgam of certain regional usages. Nothing wrong with that. If Murcians at large were interested in this experiment in developing a standard language, and magazines, books, radio programs and so on became available in the language, it would be their choice, and Murcian would be accepted as a written language. That, however, doesn't seem to be the case, especially to judge by the level of support they have mustered here, and the unseemly tactics they have resorted to. As I said, the motives to create a Murcian Wikipedia seem to have more to do with the ambition of a handful of language activists than with meeting the real needs of a linguistic community. --AngelRiesgo 21:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm NOT stating Murcian as independent language, I don't care about it, the most important for me is there are persons willing to do an encyclopaedia in their own language/dialect/whatever-you-want, because they have no place to make it in Murcian. And If you're telling that Murcian is only an "regional colloquialism form" you are demonstrating not to know the linguistic facts in the region of Murcia. Other cases such an "Andalusian grammar" really would be a "colloquialism form", or Canarian. But Murcian is different, almost to my opinion. If you read the links above, both parts, stating as Spanish dialect and stating as independent language, are saying the same: It's the most distanced dialect from Spanish, not only because of how it's pronouncing, but also because of its strongly diferent lexicon, morphology, sintax, etc... I'm sure you haven't read information about Murcian, or you have no interest to read it because of prejudices or because any other reason. --Joanot 08:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do not really understand why some people say that Murcian dialect doesn't exist. There is a link of the University of Murcia 1 about it and that should be enough. I am Murcian and I speak Murcian. It is not only the accent but also lots of local expressions and words that make Murcian a dialect. Murcian comes from a mixture of Catalan, Aragonese, Spanish and Arab. Some links about diferent words in murcian [1], [2], [3], [4]... Some word that exist in Spanish are used with another meaning in murcian: pijo (that means in spanish person with money and proud of it) is used in Murcian in much other meanings (me importa un pijo, pijarse el culo...). The rest of Spain often consider that murcian people speaks a very bad and almost uncomprensible Spanish and that's not because we speak bad but because we speak a quite diferent Spanish, such as Aragonese and Asturian (Bable). I consider that we have the same right of having a wikipedia that people from Aragón or from Asturias. There have been some irregularities with this votation but this shouldn't be an argument against this proposal. If someone thinks that Murcian is understood by Spanish people, I could say that I understand Portuguese, Catalan, Italian, Bable, Aragonese, and "Gallego" quite well and this doesn't mean they're the same langage. --Charlitos 14:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC) PS: sorry for my bad English[reply]
Those words that you say are perfectly understood in several places in Spain. So, they aren't exclusive Murcian words. Moreover, a lexicon doesn't make a language. Here you can find a lot of words and expressions frequently used in Jaén, but I'm not interested in a Jiennensis Wikipedia, because it's a no-sense. About morphology and sintax: what is the difference between Spanish and Murcian? I can't see it. Murcian is only a Spanish dialect, as evolved (or even less) as Andalusian and Canarian. And there aren't enough books written in Murcian to know its particular writing or spelling. I think this is only a experiment. 217.217.142.134 23:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In villages like Pontones or Santiago de la Espada yes, obviosly. In fact, they are part or the murcian language expansion area (or you don't know that Eastern Jaen and Murcia have too many similar lexicon?). You seems to "forget" that Murcian is extensive to all the Segura River land, and Segura River born in the Sierra del Segura, in Jaen. --Assarbe 11:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By far, the Argentinian Spanish features most of the claimed characteristics of the Murcian dialect (not to tell about the mutual understandability: has anyone watches the first shots of Martín H located in Buenos Aires? Did anyone understand? Have you seen La vendedora de rosas (it had to be subtitled)?). And nobody is thinking about an Argentinian wikipedia. With regard to lexicon, some care must by put. Most of the provided examples here (pijo) or in the Café of es.wikipedia (copón) are standard Spanish words. --Ecemaml 15:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ya que meta es multiligüe, hablaré en español, que me resulta más práctico. Lo siento, no he visto las películas. Si los argentinos quieren hacer una wikipedia, eso es asunto suyo. Quizá (y digo quizá porque no he visto las películas) el portugués se parezca más al español que el "argentino" que has indicado y sin embargo, son lenguas diferentes. Si no os vale con un estudio de una universidad pública española, pues no sé que más decir. La página http://www.llenguamaere.com/ es una página que da suficiente información sobre la lengua murciana (y no tengo ninguna afiliación a ella), os invito a que la visiteis, no mienten en nada. El dialecto murciano es el más diferenciado de la geografía española y el único que podría conseguir la consideración de lengua diferenciada a medio plazo. Si alguien considera que no debería existir la wikipedia en murciano porque no existe la wikipedia en X, pues que la proponga... --Charlitos 14:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nadie ha puesto en duda que exista un dialecto murciano. La cuestión de fondo es que una Wikipedia no es un juguete para que una o tal vez dos personas hagan un experimento. Has citado dos veces ese estudio de la Universidad de Murcia. ¿Has visto que en ese documento los autores prácticamente se mofan de la idea de que existe una "llengua murciana"? Puede ser una visión parcial, por supuesto, y está claro que hay quienes defienden la existencia de una llengua murciana, como las personas que están detrás de llenguamaere.com, Enza y L'Ajuntaera. Estas personas desean promover el uso de esta lengua y escribir y leer en la misma. Pero ¿cuántos son realmente? El número de 300.000 parece exagerado. He estado buscando referencias en Internet y me he encontrado este ejemplo de lengua murciana escrita: [5]. No cabe duda de que el lenguaje utilizado en la columna de la izquierda es pintoresco, pero ¿realmente hay 300.000 personas para quienes ese lenguaje resulta más comprensible y natural que la traducción de la derecha? Me cuesta creerlo, aunque es posible, cómo no, que sea por mi ignorancia sobre el tema, o por mis prejuicios, como dice Joanot. En cualquier caso, estás soslayando el problema de fondo. Yo intervine aquí en Meta para denunciar un fraude doble: Por un lado, la información sobre la lengua murciana se presentó de una manera creo que tergiversada, como si fuera un idioma universalmente reconocido como diferente del castellano, y con un número enorme de hablantes (3.500.000 en aquel momento); en segundo lugar, y esto es lo más grave, porque parecía que los usuarios que habían apoyado la propuesta eran usuarios falsos. Si revisas el historial de esta página, verás que fueron un usuario que ya había votado y una IP anónima quienes añadieron varios votos a favor del murciano inventándose imaginativos nombres de usuario. Y esto es lo que me parece mal, que una o a lo sumo dos personas empleen todo tipo de medios, saltándose cualquier norma ética, para conseguir una Wikipedia como si fuera su juguetito personal. ¿Qué punto de vista neutral podrá ofrecer una Wikipedia de una sola persona? Es cierto que existen ya wikipedias en lenguas bastante discutibles (se me viene a la cabeza la Wikipedia en klingon...), pero las normas para crear nuevas versiones se han endurecido precisamente para dificultar la proliferación de tales wikipedias marginales. No creo que la Wikipedia en klingon hubiera sido aprobada a día de hoy. Sigo teniendo la impresión de que el único objetivo que persiguen quien(es) desea(n) tener una Wikipedia en murciano es político: Poder presentar la existencia de esa Wikipedia como prueba de aceptación en la red de la lengua murciana, en su afán (legítimo, sin duda) de conseguir un reconocimiento oficial para ésta en la Región de Murcia. No creo que Wikipedia deba ser un instrumento de reivindicación lingüística, y menos con un apoyo tan escaso. Créeme que sentiría mucho que alguien pudiera ver algo antimurciano en mis comentarios. Nada más lejos de mi intención, de verdad. --AngelRiesgo 15:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, soy uno de los promotores de la idea de llevar a la práctica esta versión de la WIKI en murciano. En primer lugar quería aclarar que en absoluto he inventado usuario alguno. Puede tratarse de un error, ya que si fui yo quien los agregó a petición suya. Eran gente interesada en colaborar activamente con la edición de artículos. Digo esto porque me molestaría realmente que se llegara a pensar en que he inventado unos nombres para abultar la lista, cosa que obviamente no es así. Por otra parte, Angel, tampoco te tergiverso nada al hablarte de datos. Entraré en detalle. Obviamente no hace falta que te diga que no existe un murciano estandarizado, ¿porque? pues evidentemente porque no existe normalización alguna. Si la hubiese, el murciano tendría status de idioma oficial con toda probabilidad y proyectos como este ya los habrían. El murciano tiene básicamente una gramática castellana, con algún tiempo verbal en catalán, ¿y que? ¿tienen el gallego y el catalán una gramática muy diferenciada del castellano, una estructura sintáctica muy diferenciada tal vez? No, y está claro que son lenguas diferentes al castellano, porque han tenido una diferenciación y una influencias en su formación diferentes. Este argumento lo empleo yo para defender esta tesis. Comparar el murciano con el andaluz me parece erroneo. Salta a la vista que los únicos rasgos diferentes del andaluz respecto al castellano estandar son fonéticos. No existe un léxico diferenciado apenas ni existen influencias como la que la catalana tiene sobre el murciano. Precisamente si el murciano es (de momento) un dialecto, es por las influencias catalanas y árabes. Esto hace que el murciano no sea comparable al andaluz desde mi punto de vista, que obviamente es solo eso, mi opinión. En segundo lugar, obviamente con el adjetivo "pintoresco" ya has definido el porque el proyecto murciano no puede cuajar en el español. Simplemente por desprecio y desconocimiento. ¿Que crees que podría pasar si yo editase un artículo en el que en vez de decir "naranja" dijese "taroncha"? ¿o en vez de "salió" pusiese "va salir"? ¿o si usase los apóstrofos típicos del murciano? obviamente los compañeros de la wiki española lo eliminarían y me reprocharían (con toda la razón del mundo) que me ciñese al castellano estandar. Entonces ¿que debemos hacer con el murciano? ¿está en tierra de nadie? porque no nos vamos a engañar que es parecido al castellano, pues en parte deriva de el, pero no es más ni menos parecido que pueda serlo el aragonés, por ejemplo. ¿Te opusiste también a la wiki aragonesa? Porque eso sería ser consecuente con lo que estás diciendo. Quiero hacerte saber que no tengo filiación política alguna, ni pertenezco a Enza, L'Ajuntaera ni ninguna asociación de este tipo. Simplemente me gustaría realizar este proyecto. Cuanto menos, comprende que tengo que presentarlo, como se suele decir, el no ya lo tengo. Respecto a 300.000, ten en cuenta que la Región de Murcia tiene una población de 1.300.000. Ni mucho menos todo el mundo conoce el murciano. Los 300.000 a los que hago alusión son gentes de las poblaciones donde aún es representativa la influencia del murciano. Obviamente en las dos grandes ciudades la situación de esta habla es puramente residual, reducida a las pedanías adyacentes. Por otra parte, y ya acabo, quiero que percibas el hecho de que gran parte del vocabulario murciano (arabismos generalmente) fueron adoptados por el español, aunque sean palabras poco comunes. Otra parte del vocabulario murciano ha sido adoptado por el español como palabras malsonantes, etiquetando así una lengua como marginal. Obviamente si en Murcia se dice "tié que" o puesto de "tiene que", no es porque seamos más tontos que nadie, simplemente hemos recibido influencias que igual que nos hacen decir eso, nos hacen aspirar determinadas letras. Insisto, no por ser menos cultos que nadie (ya que en Castilla habrán labradores sin formación alguna que sin embargo pronuncien adecuadamente el castellano).ejemplo: Llorca es una zudià i molecipio murciano con una pupulancia e mas e 80.000 habitantes, e los qualos cuasi 50.000 viven n'er centro i 30.000 esturreaos dentre los más e 60 caseríos d'er molecipio. Llorca amás tié'l termino molecipal mas jrande e to'l Estao Español, ansina ha·arribao a ser comparao'n grandaria con provincias como Guipúzcoa Si esto te parece paleto, es tu opinión. Pero que es murciano y que el murciano es así, es una total evidencia. Y tranquilo, no veo antimurcianismo en tus palabras, simplemente algo de desconocimiento, que te lleva a creer que lo que dicen cuatro acomplejados catedráticos de la UMU es válido. Aquí ya sabemos de que pata cojea esa gente. Sienten auténtico asco y verguenza por su propio hablar y quieren enterrarlo cuanto antes. Que le vamos a hacer. Un saludo. --Assarbe 11:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias por tu respuesta. No creo que hablar en murciano sea paleto. Me parece muy bien que se intente conservar una forma de hablar que se está perdiendo. Pero tú mismo reconoces que no existe una norma culta de murciano escrito y ahí empiezan los problemas. Una de las reglas que se han aprobado en Meta para la creación de wikipedias en nuevas lenguas es que éstas tengan una forma escrita, y no me parece que el murciano cumpla esta condición. Es más, creo que el número de hablantes debería contar sólo a quienes se sienten identificados con esa forma escrita. Si hiciéramos una encuesta en la Región de Murcia, preguntando a la gente "¿Usted que lengua habla?", no creo que fueran muchos los que respondieran que hablan la lengua murciana. Es un argumento tramposo decir que hay no sé cuántos cientos de miles de hablantes de murciano, considerando un continuo que abarca diferentes niveles de diferencias léxicas y gramaticales con el castellano normativo, y contar a todas esas personas como parte de la comunidad lingüística a la que serviría la wikipedia en murciano. Me parece legítimo que queráis promover una forma normativa del murciano y que se escriban libros y prensa y, por qué no, enciclopedias en esa lengua. Es una opción como tantas otras. Sin embargo, hoy por hoy, no está claro que haya un número considerable de personas en la Región de Murcia que se sientan más cómodas leyendo información sobre, qué sé yo, la historia de Australia o la geografía de Brasil en murciano. Reitero lo que dije en un comentario anterior: "the linguistic community must exist before the Wikipedia, and not the other way around", o sea, que no empecéis a construir la casa por el tejado. Por último, el hecho de que hayas considerado que no había ningún inconveniente en votar en nombre de otros demuestra un desconocimiento de las normas de la comunidad wiki. Los votos deben corresponder a usuarios registrados, no vale decir que se vota porque alguien en comunicación personal te dijo "vota por mí". Si esas personas no han sido capaces de darse de alta como usuarios en meta o en alguna wikipedia y votar ellos mismos, comprenderás que existan dudas de que vayan a registrarse y colaborar activamente en la wikipedia en murciano. Y también comprenderás que existan dudas sobre tu propia capacidad para ser el administrador de una wikipedia, donde tendrías que velar por el cumplimiento de las normas de licencia y demás. Siento haberme convertido en el aguafiestas que ha paralizado la creación de la wikipedia en murciano pero sigo pensando que es un proyecto excesivamente personal que no aportaría nada a la comunidad wiki. Ya hay unas cuantas wikipedias medio abandonadas incluso en lenguas relativamente importantes. --AngelRiesgo 09:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reitero lo dicho antes. No se trata de un "vota por mi", sino de gente que podría ayudar potencialmente en la edición de artículos. No se si esperabas que la wiki murciana tenga igual número de colaboradores que la española. Eso sería imposible, ya que hablamos de cientos de millones de hablantes del español e infinitamente menos gente en murciano. Por otra parte, me parece bueno el argumento de que no tenemos una normalización (y esperaba creeme que lo diéseis), pero eso no pareció ser un inconveniente para crear una wiki aragonesa ¿crees que la primera opción de algún zaragozano va a ser leer los artículos en aragonés en vez de en castellano?. Por lo tanto, como comprenderás, es normal que vea que existe una discriminación en este caso hacia el murciano. Y existir una comunidad murcianohablante existe, que sea pequeña vale, pero la hay. Te invito a que vayas a los pueblos murcianos y que oigas a la gente hablar, probablemente así veras el hecho diferencial, el que una lengua o habla tenga mala prensa no puede implicar el negar su existencia. Y lógicamente no me tomo esto como un agravio a título personal, pero no puedo evitar el ver cierta discriminación hacia el murciano, como ya te he dicho antes, porque hay wikipedias en lenguas mucho menos diferenciadas y menos habladas y en este caso veo que precisamente los compañeros de la wiki española son los que están poniendo más palos en las ruedas de la dignificación del murciano. Lo que si que no me vale como argumento es que el léxico murciano se entienda en Jaén como se dice por arriba ¿como no lo van a entender? ¿no forman parte los jiennenses orientales de nuestra misma realidad: La cuenca del Segura?. Se entiende en Jaén oriental como en Orihuela como en Hellín. Lo que si me gustaría dejar claro es que no he tratado de timar a nadie con el tema de los usuarios. Lo digo porque veo que más de uno se ha sentido engañado y se ha llegado a poner en duda mi honestidad. En fin zagal, no quiero aburrirte más con estas historias. Seguiré tratando de avanzar y ejercer mi derecho legítimo a ser escuchado, aunque no se me haga ni puñetero caso :) No hago mal a nadie reintentándolo. Un saludo --Assarbe 12:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Murcian was moved from the aproved list because the "bogus users" matter, what has been demostred that there are real usernames... What's the problem now? Why Murcian wikipedia is still denied?

Stellingwerfs

Template:Requests for new languages/Stellingwerfs

Gronings

  • People interested [if native speaker, please mark (N)]:
  • ISO code : gos
  • proposed domain: http://gos.wikipedia.org
  • Relevant infos: Gronings is spoke in Groningen Province of the netherlands.
    • Link to article on the language in an existing Wikipedia:
    • App. number of speakers: 600.000
    • Location(s) spoken: Groningen province and adjacent Ostfriesland area
    • Closely related languages: Drents, Overijssels, Stellingwerfs, some neighbouring dialects in germany
    • External links to organizations that promote the language: Stichting Grunneger Toal
  • Link to request on a mailing list:
  • Comments:this page is written in Gronings
    • Roughly the same objection as above, although Gronings is spoken more widely and is more different from other Low Saxon dialect groups than Stellingwervish is. If really a lot of people support this request we can think (mind: think) of opening a Gronings-Ostfrisisch Wikipedia. Caesarion 07:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doubt - Too little knowledge about Gronings, but I doubt the Low Saxon langauge should be split into tens of Wikipedia's, however how hard it is to cope with the regional variations. DanielM 07:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (see Stellingwerfs) Arbeo 08:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must admit, however, that Gronings is among the more idiosyncratic and deviant subdivisions of Low Saxon; yet I am convinced that one Wikipedia for Plattdütsch and one for Dutch Low Saxon variants will do. Caesarion 17:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, the division is along a north-south line rather than an east-west line. http://fixedsys.org/~node_ue/o'ohadag/index.PNG A google search for "dutch low saxon" returns only 275 results, out of the first 10, 3 are from Servien's messages to Wikipedia-l, most of the rest have them as consecutive members of a list, like: "Dutch, Low Saxon, Frisian, German", or in the phrase "Dutch/Low Saxon mixture dialect in Gelderland" to refer to East Veluws. "netherlands low saxon" only finds 10 results, only one of which seems to be referring to it as a variant (others are in phrases like "In the Netherlands, Low Saxon is...". If we subtract all the "Dutch/Low Saxon mixture" results, we get 174 pages. Among the first 10 of these, 5 of them are from messages written by Servien. None of the other ones in the first 10 refer to "Dutch Low Saxon" (again, they are all parts of lists and the like) except for http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-i18n/2003-April/msg00069.html , which actually raises the issue of disunity of Low Saxon in the Netherlands, with many different dialects, orthographies, etc. The existance of a single "Dutch Low Saxon" is a myth. There is no such thing. If there were, wouldn't it appear more on the Internet than just Servien's crazy ramblings?? Compare the vast result for "gronings taal" --Node ue 05:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC) Strike by Caesarion Velim, non opto 08:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Node, all of us, including Servien, know that and we have known what you think about this for ages. Again, I gave the reasons for my support previously, though I consider my self at least as conscious as you are of the fact that the present dialects do not form a close linguistic entity. We should not squabble any further about this, it won't get us closer. And most of all, please don't throw personally aimed cries like the one above at anyone on this list. Caesarion Velim, non opto 08:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have to agree with Node here that "Dutch Low Saxon" is a rather unnatural grouping of dialects. They do not form a single language separate from Low Saxon in Germany, and I think they probably shouldn't all be lumped together in one wiki. I think linguistic considerations, not political boundaries, should determine what languages get wikis. Perhaps it would be better to aim the proposed DLS wiki at Veluws and neighbouring dialects (which are reasonably diverse anyway), and plan to form separate wikis for Gronings and other varieties of Low Saxon at a future date, depending on support from speakers of these languages. --Chamdarae 17:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh yes, languages are too often falsely divided along political borders and this is undesirable. However, the DLS initiative we are discussing was not inspired by political but by practical considerations. All of the Dutch dialects use some Dutch based spelling, quite different from the present Low Saxon Wikipedia. On nds:, besides, the dialects used are all but rarely unfamiliar to speakers of Dutch LS dialects, because a lot of differences really are east-west oriented. We have discussed this topic before elaborately, both here and on the Wikipedia mail list, where the debate often got a nasty and quite personally aimed undertone. If anything, I want to avoid that to continue. Caesarion Velim, non opto 18:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You don't seem to understand -- the Internet in general seems to agree with me. A google search for "dutch low saxon" returns only 275 results, out of the first 10, 3 are from Servien's messages to Wikipedia-l, most of the rest have them as consecutive members of a list, like: "Dutch, Low Saxon, Frisian, German". "netherlands low saxon" only finds 10 results, only one of which seems to be referring to it as a variant (others are in phrases like "In the Netherlands, Low Saxon is..."). If we subtract all the "Dutch/Low Saxon mixture" results, we get 174 pages. Among the first 10 of these, 5 of them are from messages written by Servien. None of the other ones in the first 10 refer to "Dutch Low Saxon" except for http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-i18n/2003-April/msg00069.html , which actually raises the issue of disunity of Low Saxon in the Netherlands, with many different dialects, orthographies, etc. The existance of a single "Dutch Low Saxon" is a myth. There is no such thing. If there were, wouldn't it appear more on the Internet than just Servien's crazy ramblings?? Compare the vast results for "grunneger sproak", http://www.google.nl/search?q=grunneger+sproak , 1940 results. --Node ue 23:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Node, you can repeat it over and over, I simply do not disagree with you that the Dutch Low saxon dialects don't form a linguist unity. I don't understand why you suggest I do. And again, I gave my justification long ago, so did you with the opposite. So what's the point of going on and on and on about this? We have heard each other's arguments and we know where we stand. Caesarion Velim, non opto 08:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zealandic

  • People interested [if native speaker, please mark (N)]: Caesarion; Brittannicus 09:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed domain: http://zws.wikipedia.org
  • Relevant information:
    • Link to article on the language in an existing Wikipedia: en:Zealandic; nl:Zeeuws
    • App. number of speakers: 250.000
    • Locations spoken: Roughly the Zeeland province of the Netherlands, and the former island of Goeree-Overflakkee. Depends on the defintion.
    • Closely related languages: Dutch proper, Hollandic dialect, West Flemish. Some include Zealandic in the latter. Anyway Zealandic transites into both West Flemish and Hollandic by means of a dialect continuum.
    • External links to organizations that promote the language: De Zeêuwse taelsite
  • Link to request on mailing list:
  • Comments:
    • Some Dutch nationalists say Zealandic is a dialect of Dutch. Caesarion 07:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't really, but if people show their interest I will be willing to do a lot of work for it. Caesarion 07:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Do you speak Zeêuws, Caesarion? If you do, I hope you will create a Test Wikipedia immediately and we might search for support from others. If you don't, I think we should wait for some people who do. --Node ue
      • Yes Node, I can speak Zeêuws and since my parents live in Zeeland I will probably find some native speakers willing to contribute. I know of no current Wikipedians who speak it however; some might prefer a combined Zeelandic-West Flemish Wikipedia. Caesarion 19:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • De Test-Wikipedia, of iets wat-a d'rop trekt, staet ier.
    • Oppose - Not standard spelling, a lot of regional variation in the small territory where it is spoken. No literature history. The few texts in Zealandic on the internet are basically Dutch with modified spelling to make it sound more Zealandic. Too little for a succesfull Wikipedia, and unnecessary, since since most people in Zealand are perfectly happy with standard Dutch. DanielM 07:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Daniel, there are a lot of points I must disagree on with you. First of all: there a two widely accepted spellings: the dictionary-orthography and the Noe-orthography, and the mutual differences are so small that I hardly expect any problems. The regional variation is often vastly exaggerated by the native speakers; on the contrary, most of Zeeland is remarkably cohaerent in a linguistic point of view (except for Zeeuws-Vlaanderen); much more so than North Holland, Groningen and Drenthe, not to mention Limburg. And that there is hardly any literature may not bar the creation of a Wikipedia. This is the classical chicken-and-egg-theorema: somewhere the tradition of writing Zealandic or any language has to start. Finally, I don't think most Zeelandic speakers are perfectly happy with Dutch: they might be content, but one has to stay content until a more satisfying offer is made. It is always beneficial when you can read and write your own language, for Zeêuwen not less so than for anyone else. Caesarion 17:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there is no literature, it either means the language has been opressed, or it is just silly to write literature in it, because it might just be a simple dialect that doesn't differ significantly from the cultural language. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to start a new language, and especially not to turn dialects into a language. Read this [6] why turning dialects into a language is a bad idea (also, check out the page "taalafstand" there), and this one [7] why Zealandic is not considered a language. DanielM 18:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to doubt my seriousness and to think I am absolutely ignorant about Zealandic! Man, I red quite a lot about the pros and contras of recognising Zealandic. And your remark about literature is just too stupid for words! In a way, Zealandic is oppressed, Standard Dutch being taught in schools exclusively and being the only accepted language in any official situation! Why don't you just grant 250,000 people their own Wikipedia? And tell me, was it silly to turn the low German dialects of the Netherlands into a language, namely Dutch? I can come up with dozens of internet publications that claim the contrary, but you only come up with what agrees with your point of view! Caesarion 22:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's take a look at your example Wikipedia:
        • "Jaet, j'eit 't goed gezieë, ier oort 'n afdeêlienge van Wikipedia, de vrieë encyclopedie die iedereêne kan bewarke, in 't Zeêuws opgezet.
        • Equivalent standard Dutch:
        • Ja, je hebt 't goed gezien, hier hoort 'n afdeling van Wikipedia, de vrije encyclopedie die iedereen kan bewerken, in 't Zeeuws opgezet.
        • Some of the differences we see:
          • The h is not pronounced, so removed in Zeeuws. Removal of letters is common in dialects, however, I'm not aware of another dialect that does this.
          • The ij is pronounced as ie and therefore written that way. This happens in many Dutch dialects.
          • One word(combination) that looks a bit more different, j'eit, but it is clear that this is close to "je het", which happens in more Dutch dialects.
        • We do not see any differences in grammar, and the words are standard Dutch.
        • Now German, likely far from perfect, because my German is terrible:
          • 'Ja, du hast es richtig gesehen, hier gehört eine Abteilung von Wikipedia, die freie Enzyclopädie was jeder bearbeiten kan, ins Zeeuws präpariert.
        • Apart from changes that reflect different pronounciation, it's clear that many words are completely different, i.e. je<->du het<->es werk<->arbeit opzetten<->präparieren. This example ignores the differences between German grammar and Dutch grammar, especially declensions can cause big differences in the way sentences are constructed in both languages.
        • You get similar effects if you would translate into Frysian. These things are why the case for a Zealandic language is rather weak.
        • Lastly, I think I did not deserve a personal attack. If you want to go ahead you'd better explain what direction you want to go, why, or if, Zealandic should be treated different from other dialects in Holland, like Haags and Amsterdams, and dialects in other countries. DanielM 11:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Come on now, Zeelandic is quite a lot further apart from Standard Dutch than the The Hague and Amsterdam dialects are. These are nearly identical with it! Your comparision with German is quite misleading. There are so many Wikipedias in language variants that are much closer to each other than Dutch and German are... And why do you actually oppose a Zealandic Wikipedia and support one in Gronings and leave the possibility for a Stellingverwish one open? Stellingwervish is as close to Dutch as Zealandic is (Jae, ie hebt 't goed ezien, hier wodt ne afdieling ...), and what is more important: on the to-be-created Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia, you are perfectly allowed to write in Stellingwervish, while on the Dutch Wikipedia any other variant than Standard Dutch is forbidden. That is a very strong argument pro, imo. The others are that it is fairly different from Dutch proper (in sharp contrast to the South Hollandic dialects you mentioned) and also quite coherent, though of course there are differences between the respective speeches of each region. Will you still oppose this project when I find enough willing native speakers? And if so, why not create a unified Zealandic-West-Flemish Wikipedia? Finally, I think your use of the word silly and your reference to a source as if it were the unmistakable truth should be taken as a personal attack, too. Caesarion 12:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Haags and Amsterdam are *not* equal to standard Dutch, far from it. You are mistaken by that the majority of people in these cities do talk almost perfect standard Dutch, the dialacts are almost extinct but still spoken by older people, please search some text in them on Google, and check yourself.
            • I'm going to stop this discussion, if citing sources is a personal attack, a proper discussion is not possible. I'd say its a good thing if you want to group several dialects in their own Wikipedia. DanielM 17:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe I must explain it to you: Haags and Amsterdams are Hollandic dialects, that differ only in accent and in some minor, very minor lexical features. I don't need to google it up, I know enough about it. The differences between Amsterdam dialect and Standard Dutch are similar to those between rural Texan and Standard English. Standard Dutch is based on the south Hollandic dialects, so it is satisfying for all those who speak these dialects. Not so for Zealandic: they have played no role in the formation of the Dutch language and are as a result further removed from Dutch. Don't forget I started the articles nl:Zeeuws, nl:Rotterdams, nl:Haags and nl:Amsterdams on the Dutch Wikipedia. So don't say I should google up some information because I'm just ignorant about the whole thing. Caesarion 21:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Would be willing to do some work to get this wikipedia going. I don't speak Zeêuws, but reading is no problem. Cicero 22:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a native speaker of Nieuw-Zeêuws, I strongly support having a Zeêuws wikipedia. May the yoke of oppression be lifted and the banner of vrieheid be raised in Zeeland! --Chamdarae 02:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that Chamdarae is the only native speaker supporting here, but I get the following that others may be despite not indicating that. Is anyone else a native speaker? Tuf-Kat 05:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't speak Zealandic - the link is to New Zealand English. Caesarion is the only speaker here, and he's not a native speaker, although there are other people who could help set it up. (And sorry if there was any misunderstanding.) --218.220.35.1 13:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)(Chamdarae)[reply]

Slovio

  • International Slavic language
  • Comments:
    • I love this language (it's refreshing to see such a complete non-Romance IAL), but would it have enough supporters with Internet access? If we can get at least five people willing to write for it, I'd support this one. Almafeta 02:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a Slovio-Wiki and promoted the Idea on the german wikipedia. Tiontai 12:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also love Slovio (see Slavopedia) and I can see a great potential in this auxillary language but I am against a Slovio Wikipedia in this phase of its development:
    • Kpjas 22:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • for the time being, anyone interested in developing a Slovio WP can do that within Slavopedia. Also, you must be aware of the copyright restrictions on Slovio (one may not modify the language and the question of whether expanding the vocabulary is considered a modification is unresolved). / tsca ✉ 22:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and would work. --Millosh 21:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC) I didn't see that Kpjas and others are against it :) So, don't support. --Millosh 07:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disapprove. There is simply no need for such wiki: a slavic-speaking person can use electronic translators to read other-slavic wikipedias comfortably. Slovio is quite primitive and ugly by its nature, and very few will contribute to such wiki, as it will require for them to learn it first. It was designed for non-slavic-speakers to be able to communicate with slavs, but there is no need for it when slavic people can just as easily (or as uneasily) understand each other's native speech (especially written). Ramir
      • In general, Slovio has copyright problem (such as Klingon). But, concept of Slovio is very good. For example, even I am by education slavist, it is more easy to me to read Slovio then, for example, Polish (i.e., I need a dictionary for text in Polish, but I don't need anything to read a text in Slovio). (My native language is Serbian.) If Mark Hucko in the future give Slovio in public domain, Slovio Wikipedia would have a sense. --Millosh 01:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Milosh, I am strongly convinced that you would find it easier and more enjoyable to read machine-translated Polish Wiki-articles that ones written in (poor) Slovio. Let us discuss alternative ways of inter-Slavic cooperations at Slavopedia. We should firstly gather a stable community of Wikipedians interested in inter-slavic collaboration, and only then start thinking of doing something big like a Slovio Wikipedia. Ramir (русский)
          • You are right about community. I just thought that people agreed to start Slovio Wikipedia (at Slavopedia) and I supported this idea just because of that. However, as it was not decision, I am not in favor of this idea. (I don't like copyright of Slovio and this is a big problem for me; but, I thought that there were opposite decision :) ) --Millosh 20:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. Slavic people cannot understand each other in general. I am a slavic native speaker - Czech. I can understand Slovak, but not any other Slavic language. Not even russian - and I have been learning it for 3 years in school as a child. I already forgot it (and was never able to really communicate in russian). However, I can read Slovio without any problems. --Kyknos 23:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm... I do understand Czech articles when I read them slowly. Allright, it may be just me. But what you need to consider also is how many people will be contributing to a Wikipedia in Slovio. Very few, I reckon. Ramir 09:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good point. I do like the idea of Slovio, it's an interesting project. But I guess practically all speakers of Slavic languages would prefer to both read and write encyclopedia articles in their native languages. Especially since we already have Wikipedias for almost every Slavic language, what would be the actual benefit of a Slovio one? <Arbeo> 14:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
        • "Support". That's true that Slavic people can't understand each others. Everything sounds similar, but we don't know what that is really meaning. I'm polish native speaker and I can full understand only people from Slovakia and some part of Czech (Silesia). When I have learned Slovio, I have started to understand some other slavic languages. So, thats the best way to better communications between slavic speakers. And don't forget that we have 18 slavic languages. We need one which is easy to understand for everybody.

Bartosx 22:46, 23 August 2005

Bavarian (Austro-Bavarian and Südtirolerisch)

Template:New-language-template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support: I'm a native speaker an support starting an bavarian wiki (austria included). For the matter of spelling I recommend using the books "bairisches deutsch" (www.bayerische-sprache.de/Index/Biacher.htm amazon.de) or "bayerisches Wörterbuch" [8] from Prof. Anthony Rowley as guideline --de:Benutzer:Erd

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

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

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

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

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

  • Strong support' for more different Wikipedias: I support a (South) Tyrolean Wikipedia Skafa 7 October

Gayo (2 supporters)

  • ISO code: gay
  • Supporters:
    • Node -- maybe we could also use polari? after all, it is gay.wikipedia (hah)
    • Belgian man
  • Relevant links:
  • Notes/comments:
    • Number of speakers: 180,000 people
    • I've seen that gay.wikipedia.org had existed once, but now it's depreciated. --Puzzlet Chung 01:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • But it's not in the "depreciated, moved, and other" section on the list of Wikipedias, so how can that have existed? Scott Gall 10:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I hate to bring this up, but if we went with the ISO code, this would be one hell of a vandal-magnet. If this request is ever resuscitated, I suggest using an alternative code (e.g. the SIL code "GYO" if that doesn't conflict with something else) to give its maintainers a better chance against the web's less helpful citizens... - IMSoP 00:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • You're entirely right. Caesarion 14:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, gay is the only acceptable ISO code... --Node ue 16:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • You can debate on whether to use gay: or gyo: as the code. Or maybe just gayo? Scott Gall 07:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS: I think if you did use gay as the code, it would be game for POV pushers and vandals. We don't want that.
          • I think just gayo.wikipedia.org would be the best solution. We can't sacrifice this initiative to some sort of unconditional ISO code fetishism. It simply would be used more often to make fun than for serious contributions in Gayo, and its contributors would be busy all day removing crap. Caesarion Velim, non opto 08:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think gayo would be a fine code, though there gay.wikipedia.org ought to automatically redirect or at least contain a prominent pointer of some sort. I would also support having it at gay.wikipedia.org on a trial basis, with the understanding that the Gayo community could ask for a change if vandalism becomes a major problem. While I agree it's a very possible concern, I'm not certain many vandals would ever stumble across its existence, but I could certainly be wrong. Tuf-Kat 21:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


American Sign Language/English

Template:New-language-template

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • But for a minor part of the encyclopaedia to be uneditable is one thing, to make the entire text (or nearest equivilent) uneditable is quite another. This is far more akin to the spoken articles project on en:. That is a subset of the main encyclopaedia, and thus works. I get the impression that this wouldn't work with ASL, and am sorry if that is the case. Nevertheless, if it is the case, I don't see why we should bend the rules to allow it in this instance. After all, not everyone can edit it. They would need video cameras and suitable equipment, as well as suitable software. A signed encylopaedia is a very good idea, but I don't think wiki is the way to achieve it. Smoddy 17:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless there is found a well editable way of writing down signs for the Wikipedia, understood by more than a specialized group of people. Putting signed articles on video certainly has its advantages, but it is not a wiki and as such not something to make a Wikipedia out of. - 81.70.91.207 22:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm a Valencian Sign Language user. Writting is capable not only on Oral Languages but also in Sign Languages. There are people willing to make an encyclopaedia in signwritting, why to ban them?. Remember diversity. In the other side, there are two more writting system for Signed Languages: HamNoSys from University of Hamburg (Germany), and latin alphabetic transcription of SL from University of Alacant (Valencia, Spain). --Joanot 13:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New proposals

Please post any new proposal at the end of this section.

Vlax Romany

Template:New-language-template Comments:

  • Ronline, what do you know of Romani? It is really not one language, but a group of at least five related languages with numerous dialects. Internally, the languages differ strongly, not only in phonology, but as well in grammar (some dialects have eight [!] cases, other fully dropped the case system) and in vocabulary (they share little words and adopted much from the languages of their sedentary neighbours, so dialects can be Slavonically, Hungarianly, Romanianly or Germanically affected). We should, if at all, aim at only one of those languages, preferably a dialect like the Slovakian one, which has started to be cultivated by its speakers at last. I would like to see one of these languages blessed with a Wikipedia, but it will be very difficult to find native speaker support, since the general prejudice that the gypsies are poor and seclusive is unfortunately true. Caesarion Velim, non opto 16:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we can manage such a project unless we have a strong community from each of regional Roma language. At least 5 devoted to Wikimedia users from each of 5 presented country because otherwise we will be in imposibility to manage it. And another issue I want to raise is the fact that personally, I don't see how Wikipedia can reach Roma population by it's content by now. Most of them are analphabets. They don't know elementary (I'm speaking about Romania Roma's population) reading and writing. - Romihaitza 18:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well Romihaitza, the way I envisage this is setting up different projects for all of the separate languages. The disadvantage of splitting up the potential contributors is not as bad as the problems they would have to face in one Wikipedia all writing their own language - the differences are too broad. But start for the Rumanian dialects and see if you can contact some of them... Caesarion Velim, non opto 22:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, let's try at least for a Wikipedia in Vlax Romany, the dialect spoken mainly in Romania. And I think there will be suitable people who can contribute, at least those who are involved with the Roma rights organisations. Ronline 01:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was what I was after, so I support this request! Caesarion Velim, non opto 15:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vlax is the most important Romani language, so it's certainly the one to focus on. Some reports claim that more than half of all Romani speakers speak Vlax dialects, especially Kalderash, and that it also has prestige among speakers of other Romani varieties. There is a standard language being developed, based on Kalderash. Anyway, if there are native speakers involved I'll be happy to support this. --Chamdarae 10:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Portuguese

  • People interested [if native speaker, please mark (N)]:Fábio Soldá 12:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC) (N)[reply]
  • ISO code: pt-BR
  • Proposed domain: http://pt-br.wikipedia.org
  • Relevant infos: The Brazilian Portuguese is the language spoken in Brazil. There are many differences between the brazilian dialect and the european dialect. Many words are written differently, some words in Portugal are unknown in Brazil, and some brazilian words are unknown in Portugal. And, even, some grammar aspects are different.
    • Link to article(s) on the language in an existing Wikipedia:
    • Approximate number of speakers: 180,000,000
    • Location(s) spoken: Brazil
    • Closely related languages, if any: Portuguese
    • External links to organizations that promote the language:
    • Link to request on a mailing list:
  • Comments: I'm proposing a new version of the Wikipedia in Brazilian Portuguese due the conflicts of orthography and words in the portuguese Wikipedia. In some cases, the different versions in the same text coexist; there are two words separed by slashes or brackets with the same meaning, but one is spoken in Brazil, another in Portugal.
    • Oppose - The distinction between Brazilian Portuguese and European Portuguese (if you have to make a distinction) is the same between the UK dialect of English and English spoken in the USA. And for many of the same reasons. Brazil is a land of immigrants and is a large country with a very diverse cultural background. Indeed many comparisons between Brazil and the USA can be made, with a note that the USA has a larger proportion of immigrants from Nordic counries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, England, ect.) and Brazil has a larger portion of its population from southern Europe (Portugal and Italy), although São Paulo does have a significant Japanese population as well, for instance that does influence the language and culture in that city as well. African culture is also a major influence in Brazil. There are formal language "treaties" between Brazil and Portugal to try and keep things consistant, but as all languages experience growth and change by its speakers Portuguese is no different. Since the population in Brazil is so much larger than it is in Portugal, it is no wonder then that Brazilian culture is a dominating influence on the language, just like American movies and music can sometimes offend people in England seemingly to detract from the "proper usage" of the language. I learned Portuguese by living in São Paulo for a couple of years and speak it fluently. I am not a native speaker, but I can't see supporting this as a seperate project simply because the language distinction isn't there even for "native speakers" of this dialect. Or perhaps consider a "King's English" Wikipedia with correct spelling and punctuation guidelines for the Wikipedia to suite the tastes of somebody from England? I think not. --Roberth 13:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Roberth, I proposed it because there are many conflicts in many articles in the european Wikipedia. Some people there insist in write words like "proje(c)to", "acadê(é)mico", and write two words with the same meaning, but one is used in Brazil, another in Portugal, like "trem/comboio" (train), "arquivo/ficheiro" (file) or "celular/telemóvel" (mobile phone). We need remember, also, unlike USA, Brazil has not a worldwide influence - only, perhaps, in some adjacent countries like Paraguay and in Portugal (but the portuguese influence in Brazil is greater). There is also a very large number of wikipedists from Portugal, and even the brazilians wants to suit the tastes of the people from Portugal; more than the portugeses to the brazilians.
    • Oppose, just for the same reasons as I opposed an AE Wikipedia. Brazilian Portuguese is IN NO WAY a language and hardly a separate dialect. Caesarion Velim, non opto 17:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I am not a native speaker, but I have been learning the language since 1995. I see no huge difference between Brazilian & European Portuguese. I can understand both just fine. --Chris 04:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose It isn't the same case about Murcian. European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese have not enough differences as dialect, such between US English and UK English, or Valencian and Catalan, or Argentinian Spanish and Castilian Spanish. --Joanot 13:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose There is no reason to have a separate Wikipedia just because of minor differences in spelling and vocabulary. It would be like splitting the English-language Wikipedia in a number of regional ones (American, Australian, English...) --AngelRiesgo 07:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kinaray-a

Total number of supporters: 11 (Please put the number on the line before this so that the permanent anchor-link would work. Thanks. --Bentong Isles 13:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Norfuk/Pitcairn/Norfolk

Template:New-language-template

Comments

Co-official language of Norfolk Island, with speaker communities on Pitcairn Island, Australia, and New Zealand.

See here for ISO information.

  • Wikipedia article says: "The language itself does not have words to express many concepts". So do you use this language a lot in writing, Pallmall? Furthermore, given the very small number of speakers, I think it will probably be very difficult to find a sufficient number of competent contributors to write a useful encyclopedia. Arbeo 14:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Living in Australia, I don't have the chance to use it as often as I like, but I regularly correspond with my parents back home in it, yes. Schools, churches, and even the Norfolk government all use it to some degree.

The comment in the article about it not being used too often is worded poorly, but I didn't want to edit it, lest it be seen as me trying to "cook the books". There are many concepts that don't have native Norfuk words, like "molecular geochemistry", "pneumatic vice" and "postsoviet gender theory". This is a problem with many languages with small speaker bases. However, your basics are all there, and new terms can be Norfukised if necessary. Pallmall 12:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Pennsylvania German (7)

Template:New-language-template

Comments

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

Manchu

Template:New-language-template

Comments
  • I could support a Xibe wiki, in the traditional script if possible. I guess a combined wiki with classical Manchu could be feasible, since the two are considered to be quite close, but I doubt there would be many people to contribute in classical Manchu. There are probably about 40,000 speakers of Xibe, the most speakers of any Tungusic language. The Daur, however, speak a language related to Mongolian. In the past they used Manchu as a second language, but I don't think that is true any more. --Chamdarae 07:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We can easily fit Xibe and Manchu into one Wikipedia - just quite similar. Caesarion Velim, non opto 10:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan

Template:New-language-template

Comments

See also

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages&oldid=221571"