Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for new languages

This is an archived version of this page, as edited by 213.39.208.244 (talk) at 18:05, 13 March 2006 (→Zazaki (30 Support, 20 Oppose, 3 Neutral)). 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, Wikisource, or Wikiquote. The Wikimedia Commons and Wikispecies are multi-lingual projects, meaning that there are no separate editions for individual languages. The Wikisource project has its own page to request a new language.

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

  • 1. What do I do if there is no ISO code for my language?
If there is no standard code (no ISO code for your language, you will need to propose a code that is more than three letters long. The most standard way to create a code is to use a generic code for a language family (such as gem for Germanic languages) and a three letter code for the proposed language, resulting in codes like fiu-vro (from the code for other Finno-Ugric languages and the Voro language) and roa-rup (from the code for other Romance languages and the Aromanian language). 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.
  • 2. How do I know if my language is sufficiently different from a language that already has a wiki?
This is an issue that is decided by consensus.
  • 3. Can there be wikis in ancient languages?
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.
  • 4. Can there be wikis in artificial languages?
Yes. There are already wikis available in Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, Lojban , Volapük. There used to be a Toki Pona wiki, but it was decided that the Toki Pona language was not used widely enough to support a wiki.
However, it is quite possible that a fictional language will get little favor. Many considered the existence of the Klingon Wikipedia to be unacceptable, and a proposal to shut it down eventually succeeded (See also Talk page).
Please place all new requests for Wikipedias in artificial languages at Requests for new languages/Non-natural.
  • 5. How many speakers are necessary?
No language has ever been refused solely because of an insufficient number of speakers. For natural languages, this will probably never be an issue; for artificial languages, however, a low number of speakers may be taken as evidence that the language is not widely spoken enough to deserve a wiki.
The actual number of users who know the language and work on the wiki is an important issue, but it is not known how many are necessary for a wiki to gain momentum and solid growth. The dedication of the users may be more important than the number, since a few devoted users may write more, and higher quality, articles than a larger number of casual users.

Template

People interested [if native speaker, please mark (N)]:
  • Proposer's user account in Meta and other wikis: {{{Wiki accounts of the proposer}}}
  • User accounts of others who are willing to work on the proposed wiki:

{{{User accounts of others}}}

Language code (ISO 639): {{{Language code}}}
Proposed ___domain: {{{Proposed ___domain}}}
Relevant infos:
  • Link to article(s) on the language in an existing Wikipedia: {{{Wikipedia article}}}
  • Native name(s): {{{Native name}}}
  • Approximate number of speakers: {{{Number of speakers}}}
  • Location(s) spoken: {{{Locations spoken}}}
  • Closely related languages, if any: {{{Related languages}}}
  • External links to organizations that promote the language: {{{Promoting organizations}}}
Link to request on a mailing list: {{{Request on mailing list}}}

Approved

  1. Nedersaksisch
  2. Vlax Romany
  3. Banyumasan
  4. Samogitian
  5. Ripuarian
  6. Pennsylvania German
  7. Ligurian
  8. Norman
  9. Franco-Provençal (Arpitan)
  10. Cantonese
  11. Kalmyk
  12. Tetum
  13. Papiamentu

(more details see Approved requests for new languages)

...but in need of native contributors

  1. Ainu
  2. Gayo
  3. Karelian
  4. Kinaray-a
  5. Ladin
  6. Manchu
  7. North Frisian
  8. Saterlandic
  9. Sorbian
  10. Sranang Tongo

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

Moved requests

Discussion ongoing

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

Wu

The request was raised before 21 Jan 2005 but seems unattended. See the voting in Requests_for_new_languages/China. It lasts for more than ten months. Please conclude that it is accepted or not.

Template:Requests for new languages/mae

Zeelandic Wikipedia

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

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

The requested project was created at zea: at an indeterminate date. Note that this request was approved before the implementation of the standardised Language proposal policy, and should not be used as a model for future requests. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Zeelandic (Zeêuws, zea ISO 639-3)
  • Editing community: Caesarion (P), Node ue
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: —
  • External links:
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Relevant info
    • 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.
  • 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 [1] why turning dialects into a language is a bad idea (also, check out the page "taalafstand" there), and this one [2] 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, der freien Enzyclopädie, die jeder bearbeiten kann, in Zeeuws vorbereitet.
        • 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<->vorbereiten. 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 Friesian. 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 dialects 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 vrijheid 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]
  • Oppose because it a dialect Raetius 13:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC) -- vote invalid, see DIQ[reply]
    • Raetius, are you gonna tell us what you know about linguistics? Or about regional languages in the Netherlands? I simply reject any such oppose where someone calls a variety simply a dialect without clarifying his/her opinion. Caesarion Velim, non opto 09:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the Dutch government hasn't recognised it as an official language it gets my support because I think it's a good idea for a new wiki! Servien 10:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can speak Dutch quite well, and by visiting [3] I've discovered that the difference between standard Dutch and Zealandic is big enough. I can understand Zealandic (but it isn't easy). In fact, I can understand Afrikaans more easy than Zealandic, and Afrikaans is a language, not a dialect. So I fully support craetion of a Zealandic wikipedia. Kneiphof 11:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ~ I lived in Belgium for a year, most of it in Antwerpen and Gent; the written Zeelandic sounds very much like the very nearby Antwaarps. (Zeeland is just down the river from Antwerp and just on the other side of the national border from Antwerp province.) The West Flemish they speak in Gent is more different from Zealandic or Antwaarpse than either is from each other, so I don't think it would be logical to go for "a unified Zealandic-West-Flemish Wikipedia". I studied the language in Algemene Nederlands form from people who had lived in the Netherlands before going there, so that's what I started out speaking. But, I spent six months in Antwerp (in the Antwerp centrum and later in Borgherhout) and picked up enough spoken Antwaarps that it would not be difficult for me to pick up the spelling standards and contribute. Would it be accurate to label it a Zeeuwse-Antwaarpse Wikipedia?
~ Reaverdrop 10:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bavarian Wikipdia

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

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support: I'm a native speaker an support starting an bavarian wiki (austria included). For the matter of spelling I recommend using the books "bairisches deutsch" (www.bayerische-sprache.de/Index/Biacher.htm amazon.de) or "bayerisches Wörterbuch" [6] from Prof. Anthony Rowley as guideline --de:Benutzer:Erd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Requests for new languages/tra

Bishnupriya Manipuri (5 support)

Template:New-language-template

Comments

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

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

Maliseet-Passamaquoddy (6 support, 2 oppose)

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

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

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

A sample Maliseet translation:

Kci-wikhikon

Main Page

Wikipedia-uk, 'kocoskehlawal encyclopedia.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Uskawemal Wikipedia, 'kocoskehlawal encyclopedia wen kis-mawwikhikhotuwok.

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

Wot Wolastoqewiyik elikok mace eli 2005.

This Maliseet version started in 2005.

  • Support. There are two other Algonquian wikipedias (in Cree and Cheyenne), both sadly lacking content, as are (unfortunately) most wikipedias in native American languages. To avoid the risk of a similar fate for a Maliseet-Passamaquoddy wikipedia, I would recommend finding some more people who can contribute and starting a test-wiki. If together you can write a few dozen articles, that will give you a much better start than other native American wikipedias have had. --Chamdarae 14:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. But Reaverdrop, please promise to me with your hand on the Bible that you will keep contributing as much as you can and that you will strive to find some native speakers or language revivers. That is absolutely necessary when you start a new Wikipedia. Caesarion Velim, non opto 23:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not because I oppose a Maliseet and/or Passamaquoddy Wikipedia, but rather because Reaverdrop says "I am part Maliseet and I am working on learning the language". This is something you typically hear from people who are 1/2403248909234th American indigene, and think that learning the language is all new-agey and cool and thus learn it as a hobby rather than as a serious or a real pursuit. Choctaw, Creek, and Cheyenne Wikipedias were proposed by exactly the same kinds of people, and they are really small and never grew beyond two or three substub articles. --Node ue 05:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. On top of that, one should not overlook that building an encyclopedia is a huge project, especially if you have to rely on unpaid, voluntary, non-professional writers. It takes a number of dedicated people coming from various fields of knowledge, willing to sacrifice much of their free time order to make the project a success. With the very low number of speakers (with many of them possibly being more "at home" in English), how could that be attained? Arbeo 11:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaverdrop Responds: Thanks, Chamdarae and Caesarion. To address the concerns raised by Caesarion and the opposers:
    • I've identified a few experts I'll try to rely on: Philip LeSourd, Ph.D. MIT, lingustics and anthropology professor at Indiana University, author of a Maliseet-Passamaquoddy dictionary; Robert Leavitt, linguistics professor at the University of New Brunswick, director of the Mi'kmaq-Maliseet Institute, and co-author of an ongoing Maliseet-Passamaquoddy dictionary; David Francis, a Passamaquoddy elder at Sipayik, Maine, and co-author with Leavitt of the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy dictionary; and Laura Redish, director of a Native American language activism non-profit in my local area. I will rely on them for help, and if possible convince them to participate directly.
    • My part-Maliseet grandmother makes regular visits to her hometown in Aroostook County, northern Maine, around the upper St. John River in the Maliseet heartland. She has a standing invitation for me to accompany her. I've visited there twice before. I will have the opportunity to visit again and seek to practice/check up on my Maliseet with native speakers (my relatives among them), and hopefully even get some of them interested in the Wikipedia project.
    • As for being trivialized as "new-agey and cool", there's nothing "new-agey" about studying a once much more widely spoken language of some of my ancestors. I have an established record of making serious studies of foreign languages rather than merely dabbling as a hobby: I've taken classes in Latin, Spanish, French, and Dutch, I got an A on a university fluency test for Dutch, I lived in Europe for a year and was told by native Dutch speakers that I had an Amsterdam accent and they did not believe I was American. I suspect that is more of a proven record of serious language study than the authors of the Choctaw, Creek, and Cheyenne Wikipedias could claim.
      • There are quite a few people who fit the exact same profile. Now, I would support this WP if a _real_ speaker requested it. But it wasn't a _real_ speaker. It was somebody who is learning a minority language. And, in the case of Native American languages, most second-language learners learn it as a hobby, but make similar claims to you (...ancestors). Now, if you get the same level of fluency in Maliseet that you have in Dutch, you could easily be considered a _real_ speaker. But currently, I really don't think you are. And, as always, Native Speakers über alle! Obviously, a very fluent speaker can start a WP, but Native Speakers are always the best. Now, don't get the idea that I have any problem with people learning the indigenous languages of the Americas, or with the languages themselves. I myself have taken college classes in O'Odham and Navajo. And despite the relative fluency I had at one time in Navajo, I would never have requested that WP. The only reason I took to it is because it already existed, and it's still pretty much cryogenically preserved until a native speaker comes along, with some minor enhancements such as a partially translated interface, and a handful of articles. In fact, it would be very refreshing to have a successful Maliseet and/or Passamaquoddy WP. I just don't see you as the bastion for accomplishing that goal. --Node ue 05:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for Arbeo's concern: if a low number of speakers, with some of them also fluent in a lingua franca, were a serious argument against establishing a Wikipedia in that language, we should call quits on the creation of Wikipedias in new languages, and dismantle many of the extant ones. (The Latin and Old English Wikipedias seem to be doing fine with no native speakers...) There are few if any options left if we only admit languages with current large speaking populations without knowledge of a more widespread language. On the contrary, that is an argument in favor rather than against setting up a Wikipedia in that language. The Maliseet Wikipedia will encourage and assist non-speakers or non-fluent speakers of Maliseet to learn the language, and hopefully will be available to encourage and assist native speakers to be actively engaged in their language, and let them not have to leave Maliseet behind completely when they are on the Internet. As for the time commitment, sure it is sure to be slower going with a language with few speakers, but a relatively slowly built Wikipedia is still going to do a lot more to further engagement with the language than preemptive surrender. And looking at my record of Wikipedia contributions, you can rest assured that a significant time expenditure (for at least one contributor) will not be an issue.
~ Reaverdrop 08:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice to see that you are quite serious about this, Reaverdrop! I'd morally support this if you can assure that there will be at least two participants right from the start who know the language really well. Arbeo 16:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. But (enough) "native speakers or language revivers" (as said by Caesarion) must be found... :o) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 03:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It would be immensely easier to find native speakers of Mi'kmaw, still a viable language, with ten times the number of speakers and much greater prospects for a successful revival. (Mi'kmaq and Maleseet are not mutually intelligibl btw...) I would think they are in an even better position for a wikipedia, so I would whole-heartedly support a Mi'kmaq wikipedia first, if someone were found who can write articles in it...Til Eulenspiegel 05:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Til Eulenspiegel: That's a slight exaggeration - Ethnologue lists 5.14 times as many Mi'kmaq speakers as Maliseet-Passamaquoddy speakers. (And while they're not mutually intelligible, they're closely related.) ~ Reaverdrop 23:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Revolución 02:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I support small languages but i wonder the following: if Cree, the most commonly spoken Native language in Canada has a hard time supporting its wikipedia despite the fact that often Cree children are taught in Cree, how will this language's wikipedia survive when its speaker population is hardly a percentage point of the number of people who speak the various Cree-Montagnais-Naskapi languages. From personal experience with Algonquian languages, I know also that learning a language from the family to which Maliseet-Passamaquoddy belongs as a second language for an English L1 speaker, although possible of course, makes learning Japanese or Chinese look like a piece of cake. I doubt any of the second language learners have even a minimally good degree of competence, unless they're really really motivated. So i could be wrong. I am curious how much the proposer knows about the language and I would like for him to respond to my reasons for opposing a Maliseet-Passamquoddy wikipedia in Maliseet-Passamaquoddy if possible (and I'll try to understand what i can, and i will withdraw opposition). Stettlerj 02:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Belgian man (nl na en) 16:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nl:Boudewijn Idema, 18:52 1 March

Upper Silesian (58 support [including 17 anon votes] ./. 19 oppose)

Work and talk over Silesian/Upper Silesian Wikipedia actually take place here (Polish Wikipedia namespace)

Template:New-language-template

Summary

Support:

  1. Bartek m0 (proposer)
  2. stAn N
  3. Przykuta N
  4. Drozdp N
  5. Nowis N
  6. kirq N
  7. Jaborygyn N
  8. Hermann N
  9. Pimke N
  10. Adrianer N
  11. Szoltys1990 N I agree with Artur and Tristan (Szoltys1990 at pl-wiki)
  12. Kamilus Silesius N
  13. Buzkid
  14. Hégésippe Cormier
  15. Ausir
  16. Taw
  17. TOR
  18. Datrio
  19. Adziura
  20. J"E"D (Ency)
  21. WarX
  22. Polimerek
  23. Caesarion
  24. Critto (Critto at pl-wiki)
  25. Eteru I'm not an Upper-Silesian native speaker. Neither, I consider it a separate language, but I do support the efforts to preserve and promote own culture.
  26. ABach
  27. Excumbed (Excumbed at pl-wiki)
    Wisnia13 - There is no such Wikipedian neither pl-wiki or en-wiki, only at meta (two edits). I moved it to not logged-in votes D T G 15:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Kroton (Kroton at pl-wiki)
  29. Slawojar
  30. Edi1123
  31. Filemon
  32. MatthiasGor
  33. Endriuj (Endriuj at pl-wiki)
  34. Antares
  35. Michał
  36. Uncle Davey
  37. IJzeren Jan
  38. Kajo
  39. Melancholie
  40. Tuvok
  41. Pojdulos

Not logged-in votes:

  1. Andreas (native speaker) N
  2. Anneri
  3. Artur (Jo je stond i po ślońsku sie godeć powinno wnet i na wikipedyji, a jak kery je inkszego zdanio, to gorol) N
  4. maj_chow (IP 83.19.72.74)
  5. Marcin Kowol (native speaker, www.kowol.pl) N
  6. mkkot
  7. Nancy
  8. Nejbi
  9. Paulus I would like to learn the native language of my grandfather. Please send me a message into my e-mail paulus@topmail.kz, if it will be working. I must recover my roots. God bless all of you!
  10. razor
  11. Sir iwan (native speaker) N
  12. Tatiana Korniak (Xena)
  13. Todmir (IP 220.149.85.57)
  14. Tristan (Silesian Linux User Group): I think it's good idea. Many people could learn Silesian Language from this version.
  15. Tyran (I want that wikimedia becouse Polish "gorole" don't like us "hanysy") N
  16. Wisnia13
  17. 83.18.242.234 23:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silesian Wikipedia is also officially supported by Wikimedia Polska, the Polish local chapter.

Oppose:

  1. Jörg Knappen (not enough supporters at the time of the vote)
  2. Borkowicz (because all Silesians know Polish anyway)
  3. Wanted (most Silesians use Polish as their primary language, no standardized spelling)
  4. Radomil (Polish speaker, Poznań dialect) not separate language, only dialect of Polish, no standardized spelling
  5. Arbeo
  6. Kpjas
  7. Panther
  8. Gdarin | talk
  9. Molobo (Molobo at en-wiki)
  10. Herr Kriss (explaination in comments section) N
  11. Chepry it's not a real language, actually it's not even a dialect
  12. tsca ✉ - this really should be a Wiktionary; the supporters are discussing the vocabulary and spelling
  13. Toudi
  14. Tompot (Tompot at pl-wiki) (silesian is not a language it's dialect with a lot affiliations with German)
    I would say Czech language had bigger influence ;P D T G 15:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Raetius - Oppose - (see other comments)
  16. Sobol dajcie ludzie luz. Jak bedzie coś takiego wyglądać: Jo je ślonzyok i je ja hop N
  17. LUCPOL 10:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Byda za, jeśli to bydzie śląsko wikipedia, a nie jakaś tam górnośląsko...[reply]
  18. Darwinek it's not a real language, actually it's not even a dialect
  19. D_T_G N I made my mind. Actually I oppose creating Silesian Wikipedia in such weird way, see comments section.

Comments

  • This proposal was mistakenly placed on the subpage for non-natural languages by an anonymous user. I have moved it to allow it full consideration. Tuf-Kat 04:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the creation of this wiki.
      • I support its creation, too. There are lots of people in Silesia who speak Silesian, and the language is an important part of Silesian identity. Besides, though this isn't neccessarily related to the language, more than 100,000 people declared Silesian nationality in the last census in Poland. Organizations like Ruch Autonomii Slaska (Silesian Authonomy Movement), promote Silesian identity and living in peace and agreement with all other nationalities in all of Europe. Critto
      • Gush don't forget about us: Cieszyn Silesians, we are also Silesians, but propably never be of Silesian nationality, and will be never talking about our dialect a stand-alone language. I'm really bored with you to speak about that you are not "only real Silesians", for me you're just "Prajsok" or "Sapieron", and if you wan't understand me, please read all my answers here. Don't forget that this project is renamed to Upper Silesian not (all) Silesian. D_T_G 17:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is said here, that the most related languages for Silesian (in Polish it si called Śląski język - am I right?) are Polish, Czech and German. But, as far as I understand, both Czach and Polish (and Silesian?) are slavic while German belongs to german group of languages. Please tell us how could it be? Is Silesian a mixed language? Porjidlo 18:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The designation Silesian can refer to two varieties, one Germanic and one Slavonic. It might be a mistake. I can't make out which Silesian is intended, and I will not give any support as long as the proposer does not clarify that. Caesarion Velim, non opto 20:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Caesarion, the more specific details given about it clarify that it's referring to the Slavic one: 1) Proposer is Polish; 2) Language code used is sli, which refers to the Slavic one; 3) Link to English article is to one about Slavic one; 4) "South Poland, Voivodship Silesian" indicates Slavic again. --Node ue 22:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The code "sli" is used for Lower Silesian (Germanic), which is also spoken in southern Poland, near to where Upper Silesian (Slavic) is spoken. It looks like this proposal is for Upper Silesian, but the proposer should make that a bit clearer. Also, since there's no official code for Upper Silesian, they'll need to propose one (maybe sla-sil). --Chamdarae 11:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, most evidence speaks for the Slavic idiom indeed. If that is correct, German should not be quoted as a "related language", because it only provides some loanwords etc. to the Slavic Silesian but is no close relative. Apart from that, I have yet to make up my mind about this request (same old question: language or dialect?) Arbeo 16:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The code "sli" is used for Lower Silesian (Germanic), which is also spoken in southern Poland(...) There is no Lower Silesian (Germianic) spoken in Lower Silesia now. Probably there was such a dialect in Silesia but it's simply dead as Germans moved (or were moved) due to international agreements after WWII - and simply died... Presently so called Silesian is only a dialect of Polish - it's not a stand alone language as Kaszëbe and while using this term we think about an Upper Silesian dialect. Refering to Lower Silesia we can hardly speak about a particular dialect as the language there is an official Polish with slight rests of a dialect of the people who migrated from the East after WWII and influences of dialects from Upper Silesia and Wielkopolska. Language used in Western Poland (in so-called regained lands) is the closest to the official one (hochPolish :) ). However differences between regions aren't big due to communists' unilateralization policy. If you'd have any question regarding Lower Silesia (I'm from there =) just ask. =) Aegis Maelstrom 02:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • "sli" is still the code for Lower Silesian, even if it is moribund (or even extinct). There is no code for Upper Silesian, because Ethnologue treats it as a dialect of Polish. From what you're saying it sounds unlikely that there will be a request for a Lower Silesian wikipedia, but even so Upper Silesian would need to use a different code. --Chamdarae 11:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • "sli" Lower silesian is neither dead nor dying, since it continues to be spoken on the left bank of river Neisse (around Goerlitz). I agree that you hardly find any speakers of it in the now polish territory, because ethnic cleansing was almost to 100% there.
              • Here I agree. Regarding (Upper) Silesian - as I have mentioned:) it is a dialect - like Polish highlanders' dialect. IMHO it's not that dramatic kind of difference like between Hochdeutsch and Niederdeutsch, for instance although it can be sometimes difficult to understand for a standard-only Polish user. It could be even funny to see these Wikipedias and personally I could learn something interesting about smaller cultures within Polish culture and ethnicity. The only thing I'm afraid is if there are enough passionates to run these projects. :] Aegis Maelstrom 06:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Buzkid 00:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Yes, because it is a mother language of many otherwise bilingual peoples. European minor language are very important in culture of own and their history also.[reply]
  • Support it seems its kind of middle to Czechian and Polish . -Todmir
  • Support, but enough native speakers have to be found. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 04:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, silesian is not my native language but I was born here and I speak silesian very well. Silesian sounds slavic but many words are german (tankshtela - gas station; gruba - coalmine; klapshnita - sandwich etc) stAn 23:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm interested to know how different Silesian is from Polish - is there much difficulty with communication? Also, what do most people generally speak? Silesian? Polish-ised Silesian? Silesian-ised Polish? Standard Polish? Or a mixture of these according to the situation? And is there much difference between Silesian in Poland, and Silesian in the Czech Republic? --Chamdarae 11:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pure Silesian is different, people who speaks only Polish can't understood it. People who understand Old-polish (becouse Silesian contains also words from ancient Polish) and German should understood most. But now on Silesia most people speaks Polish, people who speaks Silesian are minority (becouse of migrations afrer IIWW ). There are some comunities living in Ruda Śląska, Bytom, and in some districts of Katowice, Zabrze, Chorzów etc. Many people speaks now partly Silesian, they speaks Polish with some Silesian words (like I do). Pure silesian is dying language now. In communist times Silesian wasn't forbidden but if you want get to the higher level in hierarchy you shouldn't use this language - Silesian was language of labourers, mostly coalminers and steelworkers. I don't know the situation in Czech Republic. stAn 13:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Andalù (25 support [thereof 10 unregistered users, but some with different ip's]; 20 oppose [thereof 1 unregistered user]


Agora ya tenemoh a buehtra dihpozizion un wiki pa loh andaluzeh http://andalu.wikicities.com i ke biba er Betih manke piehda!

Template:New-language-template

Comments
  • There is a standard in transcribing Andalusian which is mentioned in the es:wiki article on Andalusian: NOA or Norma Ortográfica Andaluza although not many speakers of Castilian may be aware of this fact, it is a "standard" which aims to show the actual spoken Andalusian. There are of course other proposed "orthographies" or spelling conventions which aim towards a more "phonetic" rendering of Andalusian. (similarly with Galego there are efforts to change the orthography by some who want to approximate it to Portuguese written conventions). The NOA is a good transition towards a legible form of Andalusian with enough similarity to written Castilian to make it familiar to generations of Andalusians who were taught to write Castilian.
Support:'
  1. Support(N)--Rautjes 23:05, 13 Nov. 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support--Node ue 23:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support (N)--ILVI 01:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC) (nacido en Sevilla) Let's hear it for minority languages!!! (in this case not such a small minority, however ;-)[reply]
  4. Support(N)--Chitita It isn't absourd to create a wikipedia in andalusian, it is another language for a lot of andalusians, who would participate more in the wiki project if they had a Wikipedia in Andalusian. There are a lot of Spaniards that hate to hear about the andalusian language, because they don't want andalusians to have the right to do what they want with their language, but this site isn't Spain or its governments, it is a free site in the internet with the purpose to create a free Encyclopedia in all the possible languages. ANDALUSIAN IS ONE OF THOSE LANGUAGES. 15:31, 15 Nov. 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support(N)--Juaniyo3 I can't understand why those spaniards don't want that we have a wiki in our language. There is a lot of wikis in languages that are not natural. Those non-natural languages are able to have a wiki. There are also a lot of dialects that have an own Wikipedia. Andalusian is a natural language, spoken by aprrox. 8.000.000 persons. We should also have the possibility to write in our mother-language, it is not possible at school in Andalusian, it is prohibited, so that our language is going to dissappear in the future, because it wont be learned at school. An Encyclopedia in Andalusian would give Andalusian a very important opportunity not to disappear. I'm sure Wikipedia is going to do that, and I am also sure that not just to Andalusian. 15:53, 15 Nov. 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support(N)--Oplicoisn't a username, anonymous It isn't fair what some people that oppose to an Andalusian Wikipedia say. Andalusia has allways been different of the rest of Spain. It has allways had a proper culture, history and language. It is time to start a serius project in Andalusian, the idea of a Wikipedia is very good to start something serious in Andalusian. I know there are a lot of crazy people, but those people are not interested in a Wikipedia, just we that are serious, are interested in it. Spanish people dont have to be afraid because of Andalusian. A Wikipedia in Andalusian is going to make the culture of Andalusia, Spain and the world richer. 15:53, 15 Nov. 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support (N)-- Theurge 17:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) If there are wikipedia's in many dialects I believe that it isn't a nonsense that "Andalú" have got one of this.anonymous
  8. Support (N)-- Francisco Morales 22:13, 15 November 2005 "Andalú" is too diferent from spanish to be a dialect. Moreover some people from other non-andalusian cities can't understand "andalú" due to the diferences between castilian and andalusian dialects.anonymous
  9. Support--Buzkid 00:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Yes, because it is different sounding language. It is known from Flamenco Andalusian singers in all the world. It is very different from Castillian which is sounding strange even for South American speakers of Spanish. In some italian dialect areas it is easier to understand Andalusian person than Castillian speaking person.[reply]
  10. Support--Sabine 09:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC) I know from experience that Andalusian is not Spanish, but another language - it is not just a dialect since it is too different. Andalusian literature exists - for some more notes see my mail to the wikipedia-l. Well I am not a native speaker, nor do I really speak it - I just noted that I could understand it thanks to my speaking not only Spanish as foreign language. Building up the Neapolitan Wikipedia I know what it means to deal with non standardised spelling and I can help with uploading for example the calendar (a thing I can do for every wikipedia if you provide me with the necessary "basic information" - the tables for it are already created.[reply]
  11. Support-- Marley 13:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC) -- I support the Andalusian Wikipedia. Although I'm not a native, I understand it just as well as Standard Spanish, and can tell there's a marked difference between them. I also love Flamenco arts (music, singing, etc.).[reply]
  12. Support (N)-- Loqu 15:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC) I'm a native speaker of Andalusian, and I want my language to be respected and promoted. Since the official authorities don't seem to care, Wikipedia would be a good place to start from.[reply]
  13. Support (N)-- Caetano 19:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Andalusian Spanish predates the Reconquest by Castilian armies. For me Standard Spanish spelling with marked sound differences like aspiration of final "s" would be ideal. A total re-spelling of the language, although phonetically more accurate would be a thing for the future. Andalusian is spoken now as Asturian and Aragones are in their respective provinces. Andalusian deserves its voice in Wikipedia.[reply]
  14. Support -- GerardM 08:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC) I have learned enough about languages to know how true it is 'a language is a dialect with an army' given the UN support for minor languages and given the way people expect/dismiss suckpuppets I want to balance this a bit. In Ultimate Wiktionary we will gladly include dialects. GerardM 08:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support -- Caesarion 10:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC) We have a Ladino Wikipedia, and Ladino is obviously much closer to Spanish than Andalucian is. We have a Neapolitan Wikipedia, and Neapolitan is at least as close to Italian as Andalucian is to Spanish. From this point of view, we can't deny this variant its own Wikipedia.[reply]
    • Where did you get such funny ideas from, if I may ask? Ladino, from what little I've read or heard, is way more different from Spanish than Andalusian is, and Neapolitan, from what Italian friends have told me, is also pretty different from standard Italian. Andalusian, on the other hand, is just an accent, like say Irish English. Can you enlighten me with any lexical and grammatical differences? And don't mention the plural second person pronouns, like "ustedes cantáis", since there are similar differences in the use of pronouns in Latin American Spanish. As for lexical differences (like the word for "potato"), most of those are also extensible to Canarian and Latin American Spanish, you will find it hard to find any words that are really exclusive to Andalusian other than some slang expressions. In case you haven't noticed, the text in Andalusian a few lines below is just Spanish written with a phonetic spelling to reflect Andalusian pronunciation. Any Latin American variety, like Chilean Spanish, is much more different from mainstream Castilian Spanish than Andalusian is. --AngelRiesgo 02:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support -- ExileMan 21:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC) Andalusia is not Spain. Andalusian is not Spanish.[reply]
  17. Support (N)-- User:84.122.6.209 18:04 , 22 Nov. 2005 The best thing for you know if andalusian is a language is visit this country. Thanks"
    "I was born in Cádiz (Kai in andalusian), Personal of Wikimedia, if you will visit this county, Andalusia, you can see that here we don't speak spanish, There're people that are "serraitos" a little closed and they can't see the "new language" but they SPEAK this language, it's incredible. I'm sorry, I'm learning english. If you don't understand me I write in other language, andalusian, spanish etc..."
    "(Nasio'n kai), Perzoná de Wikimedia, jí-uttedë vizitaï ette paï, Andalusìa, uttede podreï vé k'akí nojotrö n'hablamö er eppanhol (kattellano), Hay perssonä ke son "serraitö" (un poko sserraö) i no kieren vé'r "nuev-idioma" pero ellö j-hablan ette idioma, e una coza inkreible. Lo ziento, ti aprendiendo inglé. ji tu no pueë entenderme ekkribo en otrö idiomä, andalù, kattellano ets... Gra(ss/z)iä"
    "Nacido en Cádiz. Personal de Wikimedia, Si vosotros visitáis este país, Andalucía, vosotros podréis verque aquí no se habla español, Hay gente que son "cerraditos" (un poco cerrado) y no quieren ver el "nuevo idioma" pero ellos lo hablan, es una cosa increíble. Lo siento, Yo estoy aprendiendo inglés. Si tu no has podido entenderme escribo en otros idiomas, Andaluz, Castellano etc... Gracias."
  18. Support. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 04:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support (N)-- Gustavo Camino Ordóñez
  20. Support (N)-- Susana García Muñiz
  21. Support (N)-- Juan Antonio Camino Ordóñez
  22. Support (N)-- María del Mar Camino Ordóñez
  23. Support (N)-- Carmen Ordóñez Moreno
  24. Support (N)-- María Asunción Prados Ordóñez
  25. Support (N)-- Esteban Parra Garcia
  26. Support (N) STRONGLY SUPPORT
  27. Support (N)-- Eduardo Gomez Fernandez

Atenzion amigoh: agora ya tenemoh a buehtra dihpozizion un wiki pa loh andaluzeh http://andalu.wikicities.com i ke biba er Betih manke piehda!


Oppose:
  1. Oppose--Javier Carro 13:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC) Andaluz is a dialect of Spanish without an standard writing. Andaluz speakers are merely Spanish speakers with phonetic variations. It seems to me that a certain group of people are trying to create lots of Wikipedias based on Spanish dialects. The next one: my mom's village linguistic variation.[reply]
    • So are we to understand that the Catalan and Aragonese Wikipedias are rubbish as well, Javier? Caesarion Velim, non opto 14:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn´t call it rubbish, but dialect. And I didn´t talk about Catalan neither Aragonese Wikipedias. Catalan is a language derived from Latin, not from Spanish. Catalan has literature. Andaluz doesn´t. Andaluz is Spanish, but Spanish spoken with certain variations. If we create an Andaluz Wikipedia, we should also accept a Wikipedia in any of the dialects appearing in w:en:List_of_dialects_of_English. --Javier Carro 16:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No Javier, only to those that are can be considered seperate languages when one considers the differences between the variety discussed and the language it is supposed to be a dialect of. It is true that the main linguistic division of the Iberian paeninsula is east-west oriented rather than north south, as a result of the rather straight Reconquista. To say that there are barely any differences between the speech of Old Castilia and Andalucia goes too far. So everyone should just take a look at some Andalucian texts, and read the article on this variant in Wikipedia. Then you can make out whether it is separate enough to be called a language. The time that gouvernments could tell us what was a language and what wasn't is over now. Caesarion [[User_talk:Caesarion|<small>Velim, non opto</small>]] 17:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with you on your claim of separating politics and linguistics. But I think you don't see that the political claim comes from the sockpuppeter. So, you are right, have a look to the English Wikipedia article about andaluz and you'll see its differences with the standard castillian pronunciation. Because the difference is mainly pronounced. So, many people claim, even, that Andalucian is not a dialect, but just a peculiar pronunciation of Spanish with certain particular words. So, the fact of calling it dialect is to be quite generous with those longing to create a new language where it is not. And it's funny, because certain variations spread to Spanish spoken in Madrid like the "s" aspiration at the plural suffixes. Some linguists consider Andaluz as a developed form of Spanish. You ask for Andalucian texts, but, which ones? I told you that there is not Andalucian literature splitted from Spanish. Of course we could make a phonetic transcription like this sockpuppeter does, but we would be part of an experiment creating a writing system which does not exist. I strongly believe that most, most andalucians who would read this voting would be laughing at the proposal. --Javier Carro 06:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Some are of the opinion that the aspiration of final "s" in Madrid is a result of the immigrant working class reinforcing its accent on the whole community over quite some time. For example: American inner cities have developed separate English accents which reflect similar pronunciation habits. This is a cultural point which would reinforce that Andalusian is different from Standard Castilian Spanish. Caetano 19:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Now that's a curious theory. Then how do you explain that the aspiration of the s sound at the end of a syllable happens in most of the rural areas between Madrid and Andalusia? Have Andalusian immigrants taken over all of Catilla-La Mancha, Extremadura and Madrid and even border areas of Castilla y León? --AngelRiesgo 02:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose La ortografía propuesta es una invención artificiosa sin base alguna. Nadie ha escrito así nunca este dialecto, salvo una docena de iluminados mal avenidos. --Sanbec 15:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Lourdes Cardenal 17:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. OPOSSE Felipealvarez 19:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC) El Andaluz is a variety of dialects from castillian. NOT A LANGUAGE![reply]
  5. Oppose. Because there is already a Wikipedia in Andalusian: http://es.wikipedia.org This is not a request for a new language, but a request for an innovative orthography for the Spanish language. Wikipedia dixit: w:en:Andalusian dialect. ManuelGR 21:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the article in the es.wiki Andalusian is NOT a dialect of Castellano
    "El origen de la modalidad lingüística andaluza debemos buscarlo en la época andalusí, en la cual el latín vulgar hablado en Al-Andalus evolucionó hasta la lengua de alyamía, la hablada por los habitantes de Al-Andalus no relacionados con las élites dominantes (las cuales hablaban árabe o bereber). En la lengua de alyamía podemos ya encontrar bastantes de los rasgos hoy característicos de los andaluces. La posterior conquista castellana ocasionó que ambas hablas (la castellana y la andaluza) no divergieran sino que se encontraran, por lo cual hoy en día no suelen ser consideradas lenguas distintas. Al no provenir en su totalidad del castellano, algunos lingüistas opinan que no debe ser considerado diacrónicamente un dialecto de él; por eso el término que se considera más correcto para definir al andaluz (y el oficial según la Consejería de Educación y Ciencia de la Junta de Andalucía) es el de «modalidad lingüística andaluza», aunque no estén de acuerdo todos los eruditos en el tema."
    So I am also of the opion that due to politics Andalusian hasn't gotten the respect it deserves due to it's own roots in the Vulgar Latin spoken in the Betica Region of Spain and it's development through the years of Moorish occupation. Marley 19:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Las características principales del andaluz son una pronunciación bastante diferente de la castellana y un repertorio de palabras autóctonas, que sumadas a las castellanas determinan una relativa riqueza léxica. Existen asimismo algunas variaciones sintácticas y morfológicas.
  6. Oppose: In the articles, is refered as dialect and don't have a gramatical standard. --Taichi - (^_^) 23:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some support votes are realized by an annonymus IP's in the range 80.133.2XX.XXX; this votes must be invalid.--Taichi - (^_^) 02:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reminds me of what happened with Murcian above. This is even more of a hoax, in my opinion. -- AngelRiesgo 08:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't the same. Murcian has their own verbs, different than castilian verbs. Murcian has catalan influences... Andaluz isn't a language, is castilian with another form of writing and speech, but no more. Si no conoces el murciano y el andaluz, lo mejor que podrías hacer es no ponerte en evidencia. Lo que estas insinuando es una aberración propia de alguien que quiere meter sus narices en un tema que desconoce por completo.
          • No sé lo que quieres decir con eso de "lo que estás insinuando". Decía lo de que me recuerda al caso del murciano por lo de las IPs. En cuanto a que el murciano es mucho más diferente del español normativo que el andaluz, pienso que es cierto; y en cuanto a mi ignorancia, también tienes razón, pero en mi defensa te tengo que decir que soy un apasionado de la lingüística y que siempre me ha interesado la cuestión de las lenguas y los dialectos. He estudiado árabe y chino durante muchos años y siempre me ha llamado la atención como formas de hablar totalmente ininteligibles en estos idiomas son consideradas meros dialectos mientras que en otras partes del mundo pequeñas diferencias léxicas y gramaticales se utilizan para justificar la existencia de una lengua diferente. En estas cuestiones de lenguas y dialectos nada es blanco ni negro, todo son matices de gris y muchas veces una cuestión de identidad. Así, dos árabes o dos chinos incapaces de entenderse se ofenderán si alguien les dice que no hablan una única lengua, mientras que un serbio y un croata se ofenderán por lo contrario, si se les dice que hablan la misma lengua, aunque se entiendan a la perfección. En este caso del murciano, lo que no acabo de entender es por qué los que sois tan activistas tenéis tanto empeño en tener una wikipedia en murciano. Mientras prácticamente ningún libro de lingüística en el mundo mencione a la lengua murciana y la propia sociedad murciana no parezca tener interés en utilizar una norma culta escrita diferente de la castellana es difícil defender al murciano como una lengua diferenciada, y yo no soy partidario de que la creación de wikipedias sea un instrumento de reivindicación lingüística. Y que quede claro que no estoy diciendo que no exista una forma de hablar murciana. Lo que me parece discutible es que se la pueda llamar lengua y que tenga sentido crear una norma culta escrita basada en esa forma de hablar popular. Si lo conseguís, no me parece ni bien ni mal, pero no creo que una wikipedia sea la manera de empezar a promover una lengua escrita. Y ésta es sólo una opinión, pero tan válida como la tuya o la de cualquier otro. --AngelRiesgo 02:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Oppose This is absurd. What next? Different wikipedias for those who speak rhotic and non-rhotic varieties of English? How about splitting the German Wikipedia between those who say Saturday as Samstag and those who say Sonnabend? And I gather those French speakers in Switzerland and Belgium who can't cope with funny numbers like quatre-vingts deserve their own wikipedias too. The lexical differences between Andalusian dialects and mainstream Castilian Spanish are minimal. It is mainly a different accent, in many respects closer to Latin American Spanish than to other peninsular varieties. Anyway, I wonder if the people who support this are serious at all. Apart from the bogus user names, some of the comments are little more than jokes, like the one saying "I am Spanish and I don't understand Andalusian". This is sometimes said in a jocular way in Spain, a bit like when an English person says "I'm very bad at languages. I can't even understand Geordie!". --AngelRiesgo 08:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, okay. Blockinblox 17:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: it 'a fictional language. Only a group of nonhomogenous dialects. Rata de Biblioteca 10:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hemogenia" dialects? Learn English before you state your opinion! If you mean homogeneous, I can do nothing but contradict you: of course not all of the dialects are the same, but they do share a lot of common features. And it is certainly not a fictional language. Do you know what a fictional language is? Obviously not: a fictional language is a language that was conceived by one person or a few people for fun, or for use in fiction. Do you really wish to liken Andalucian to Klingon, Quenya and Sindarin??? Caesarion 12:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    He's speaking Spanglish, a real language. What about a Wikipedia of this spoken language? Let's take Wikipedia more seriously. By the way, do you have to know English to state your opinion in Meta, what happened to the plurilingual philosophy of Meta? Andalusian is a real variety of Spanish but fictional as a language. Don't be fooled by two or three extremists. ManuelGR 20:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Let Rata write in Spanish if he is incapable of writing English, I for one will tolerate that, though I'll have to reply in English. What I will not tolerate, however, is that you label those who consider Andalucian a separate language as "extremists". These are ordinary people with their own views which may not concord with yours, but whom you cannot simply dismiss as "extremists"! Caesarion 16:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? They are ordinary people with their own extremist view. That's my humble opinion. Tolerate it or not, I don't matter. ManuelGR 13:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. OPPOSEAnna 21:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC) I agree with Javier Carro's opinion.[reply]
  5. Oppose Arbeo 14:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Having a basic knowledge of Spanish, I can read the Andalusian test WP without difficulty. There is absolutely no convincing evidence that this is a distinct language. Arbeo 14:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Joanot 10:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC) Andalusian have not enough entity in order to be able considered as dialect. Is the same case of Valencian with Catalan, but diferent about Murcian with Spanish. The only one difference with the Spanish WP would be a different writting norms.[reply]
  7. Oppose for many many reasons. Among those: not being recognized as a separate language by nobody, lacking a standarized form, being a politically motivated request. Ejrrjs 23:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is funny, only because a language is not yet recognised as a separate language it is not there ... well if you asked this question some time ago for Neapolitan or Sicilian or Venetian or whatever Italian minor language "none of those" would have been there. Going back in history you will find that the Neapolitan language was very much influenced by the Andalusian language, this during the invasions of the Arabs in that region and in the Reign of the two Sicilies ... really I do not know the complete history - what I know is only about languages.
    It is obvious why governments don't want "local languages" to live ... they fear that a separation would be the next step not knowing that if they let the identity of such small regions live these small regions will assure that there is going to be unity. Not allowing for diversity creates the "need of separation" allowing for diversity creates the "need of unity" and really I am wondering why politicians do not understand that simple rule.
    In Andalusia you have people tell the kids to "speak well" meaning to speak Spanish (well what is called Spanish) and not their local language - we still have the exactly same behaviour here in Campania. People are still taught that their local language is only a low level thingie, for non instructed people ... well make the language of a people die and you make the people die. A people without language is not a people anymore - a people without past has no future - and such a people has NO identity - and this is the most pericolous thing of all. People having no identity will not care about certain things.
    In this sense I wish you all a wonderful Sunday. --Sabine 07:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose rsg (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC) I agree with Javier Carro's opinion.[reply]
  9. Oppose Edub 12:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mild Oppose Chlewey 16:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC). I am pretty much sure that any Andalusian that is literally enough to use a Wikipedia, would rather use a more complete encyclopedia in the language they know how to read and write: standard Spanish/Castilian than learning a new orthography. A Wikipedia in Andalusian would rather handicap than empower Andalusians.[reply]
  11. Oppose Languages should not gain legitamacy at Wikipedia, rather NPOV insists that a language be independently verifiable as distinct prior to being authorized as a new language on the wiki. I am not convinced by the arguments above that such a standard has been met. Trodel 01:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Opose Andalucian ins't a language. Is a variant of castilian, and not have 8.000.000 speakers. This was an unregistered user on 1 dic 2005. Interesting... Loqu 18:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 'Oppose Lo siento, pero me opongo a esta idea sin ningún motivo ofensivo. Es que creo que el dialecto de Andalusia no merece su propia Wikipedia. Espero no haber ofendido a nadie. --Chris 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose --Kokoo 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - Who could seriously call Andalusian a _language_? Raetius 11:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose --SMP 16:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything can be discussed here but cheating will not be tolerated. I simply don't believe that three Germans get up in the middle of the night just to register themselves at Meta (all with their complete first and last names, very unusual) and express their support for an Andalusian WP within an eight minute span of time. Please correct the dishonest parts and then we resume the discussion! Arbeo 16:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • NB: One more thing is really suspicious. The votes of the supporters "Sandra Röminger" through "Oplico" all show the same very uncommon structure used by nobody else (first "support", then the user name, after that a comment and lastly the date). The preceding four all knew how to insert the current date without making their IPs show up, which is not less unusual. I really feel like deleting them all. Arbeo 16:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Wikimedia promote experiments for language creation? If the Wikipedia in Andalusian is created I foresee this is going to happen:
  1. A small minority will gather to edit the new wiki.
  2. They will start to fight for the spelling, because there is not a writting standard. See the test-wp history: [8].
  3. Someone will write a bot that translates from the Spanish Wikipedia to the Andalusina one, changing the spelling so it looks more andalusian in his own view. The grammar don't matter, it's just the same. Wikimedia resources will be consequently spoiled.
  4. People will start to get bored of their old toy and will abandone the project. There will never be a consensus about the spelling.
  5. Andalusian Wikipedia will be a dead project and a spam paradise.

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

  • Wikimedia does not promote experiments for language creation. Let's see to get your points right:
  1. At the beginning it will be a small minority and this small minority has the right to do just like others.
  2. Fight for spelling: well this depends very much on who is leading the project - within wikipedia we have good and bad experiences of that - the good ones survive - the bad one dies. Talking about spelling standards is always a difficult thingie, in particular for languages that have not been written for centuries or only in songs and poems. We have these situations in different wikipedias: one is Neapolitan where I am admin - there is a very simple thing you can do: be tolerant ... and I suppose that if you talk with people those not being tolerant will go away - the tolerant ones will remain and the project will maybe grow a bit slower, but with more success.
  3. A bot? You are joking, aren't you? Some kind of Babelfish for Andalusian? Well if you think in such a negative way ... sorry I cannot help you. The grammar does matter since even that is different - slightly different, but there are differences. Of course there are such things as CAT-Tools like OmegaT that can help you doing translations by giving you glossary items or 100% match sentences if some sentences were already translated before, but an automatic thingie is much too far away to be used for such stuff. CAT-Tools, if used properly, can make you really fast ... well you will see this on the Neapolitan wikipedia. I will use all instruments a translator has at disposal to get certain "regular" stuff done ... and of course I use bots to upload pages I prepared offline, add interwiki-links, create the calendar or whatever. But these are used on many Wikipedias and they only help you to work more efficiently avoiding to waste time.
  4. People will not get bored - it all depends on the right admins. As I already said in several e-mails: being an admin of a Wikipedia in a minor language you do not have an easy life. It is much more about keeping people motivated, about not stopping even if you are the only person in the world editing, about printing pages and give them to people who have no internet access, about creating projects and stuff people can work on, about reaching out to discussion lists and forums about that language, about printing relevant articles and putting them on a blackboard of the town hall, schools, churches, universities. And I bet with you: people who want to maintain their language will do all that. Often people don't know what they can do - but once they know ... you would be surprised how much even only one single motivated person can do.
  5. If a project is dead this just means that it is waiting for someone to come and clean up ... well these people sooner or later come up. Spam: it is not so much work to go after a small wikipedia - anyone having admin rights and understanding the language can go there once a week and at least clean up. Wikipedia is about co-operation and making an encyclopaedia available to each person in the world in their own language, about being positive in thought, fact and deed and not about seeing only difficulties before a project starts.
We have only one life to live.... one life to give .... when it is over it is over. These might be strange words from a person like me: well I had my experiences. And these experiences lead me to do exactly what I feel I need to do. Tomorrow can be too late.
Time ago I saw a video about an account - a time account - and this account is filled up every day with 24 hours having 60 minutes each. Once the day is over the minutes and hours that were not used in a positive way are just gone - you cannot get them back. You just have the possibility to decide to use each one of these new 24 hours with 60 minutes each as positivly as possible. Well: do it. I am sure you can. I am sure you have thousands of things that should get done: don't wait and just start doing.
As I told you: this is a wikipedia where I can say it has a right to live, it has a right for a chance. I cannot say this for all minor language wikipedias since I do not know enough about all those languages. But if there are things where I can help and I have the time to do so: well I will do it. My actual to do list is long ... but it is so long because I want to get things done. Some will never be done, but at least I try.
Think about your time account and how to use it - then think about the right to live and have an identity you want yourself - and then think about what you can do to help others to get this - and then consider if you would like to be prevented in doing things you stand for - and then think if you really want to prevent these motivated people from trying to go their way.
Hmmmm .... there's not much to add ... I suppose this is already too much for some of you...
Thank you for having taken the time to read this.
--Sabine 18:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are fair, but they fail in the main premise. You are talking about Wikipedias in minority languages and about their struggle for survival. I support all your arguments. On the other hand, Andalusian Spanish is not a minority language but a majority dialect or language modality (whatever term is prefered). The great majority of people in Andalusia will feel offended if we say them they don't talk Spanish but a different language, and that they should read that new bizarrely-spelled Wikipedia. I think most of them will think we are joking. ManuelGR 18:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without consideration of whether the language should exist or not, the vote above does not seem fair to me at all. I am not convinced anonymous votes should be authorized and I am totally convinced sockpuppetry is very unfair. Per one participant request, I run a quick ip check over some username, and consider there is high chance several votes are from the same person. I raised the issue on foundation-l@wikimedia.org Anthere 17:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Another supernatural phenomenon here: the proposer of this wiki, Rautjes (btw: does anybody know him?), expressed his support 23:05, 13 Nov. 2005 (UTC) and within that very same minute a second native speaker of Andulasian, Aranui (real person?), appeared here out of nowhere. (cf. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages&diff=next&oldid=235636) Arbeo 14:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Middle English (6 support, 3 oppose)

Template:New-language-template

  • Doubtful, doubtful... Don't all of us read and write Middle English, but speak New English? Is the difference big enough? And most of all, can you gather a force of contributors similar to that of ang:? If not, I will not support this project. Caesarion 15:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caesarion, I assure you þat þe langage at þe courage of þe Englysshe nacioun of olde is indede quite diferent from þat of to-day. --00:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC) (C, I can assure you that the language at the heart of the old English country is really very different from modern English).
    • It certainly is. See this sample circa 1370, [10] Moreover, I expect the contributers to be more plentiful than that of the Ang, since medieval poetry is more comprehensible and commonly enjoyed than the more archane works like Beowulf. Note also than the Scots "language" is only trivially different than modern English compared to medieval English, yet it has its own section here. Inkstersco -- 28th November -- 12:46
      • Yes, but Scots is a modern language. Wikis in extinct languages cann only be opened if enough people actually show their interest. A ME Wikipedia might attracht a slightly different public than the ang: Wikipedia: most people that learn Anglo-Saxon do so mainly for linguistic interest, while Middle English leaners can be rather poetry-oriented. Caesarion 14:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I think the successes of la and ang show that something similar is possible for Middle English. However, I can't speak it myself, so my vote cannot be counted as a prospective contributor. Marcos 15:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oprrortosert --Node ue 00:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is probably supposed to mean "oppose", though I wonder in what language. Caesarion 09:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think rather it's meant to be a conglomeration of "oppose" and "support", mashed together in a strange way. Node is an English speaker.
    • I know, but Node is never neutral to any new language request. It would be very un-Nodish if he could not make up his mind. Caesarion 21:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a difficult case. It's not possible to automatically convert Middle English / Modern English. It's very different from Modern English. At the same time, nobody speaks it natively, and even if they did, it's somewhat mutually intelligible with Modern English. If it had a working Test WP, I might support it. But riht now my vote remains Oprrortosert. --Node ue 12:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support; I like the idea of a Middle English Wiki, and thing it is different enough from Modern English to warrant a wiki if we're giving wikis to dead languages like Old English. I would also be willing to contribute to this wiki, though (while I read Middle English just fine) I would probably need a refresher course on writing the language. I also think the date of the beginning of ME should be pushed back to 1100 from 1200; the "Middle English period" started in 1066, though the language did not exist at that time. Jade Knight 18:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On one hand, I find it really fascinating to read (or decipher) texts in languages like Old English, Middle English, Althochdeutsch, Mittelhochdeutsch, Altsächsisch, Old French etc. and see how our present-day languages have evolved through various stages in history and discover common roots. On the other, I can't figure out how an encyclopedia written in Middle English is supposed to serve the aims of Wikipedia or where the exact use of an article on HTML or microsurgery written in the language of Chaucer lies. Oppose (admittedly with a somewhat heavy heart this time). Arbeo 18:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you must oppose this; Consider whether you'd say the same of the Anglo-Saxon language that has become quite prolific. Anglo-Saxon is less read than Middle English, and less comprehensible. My suggestion is based around that standard. ~Inkstersco, 5 Dec 05(UTC)
    • Hi Inkstersco! Yes, I would say the same if somebody now proposed a WP in Anglo-Saxon. Or in Althochdeutsch or Mittelhochdeutsch, which are the corresponding ancient stages of my native language. My personal opinion is that Wikipedias in dead or constructed languages are not a very good idea with regard to our primary aims. But you'll never see me trying to block anything if there's a clear majority ;-) Arbeo 20:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Middle English is a language on its own. I don't understand it to well, but specialists or fans: go ahead! Mig de Jong 18:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Support IF you can decide WHICH dialect "middle English" shall be defined as, and IF one can put up some kind of comprehensive resource to aid those who might wish to help, then I would say yes, just about. One has to remember that Middle English isn't a coherent language in the way some think; it is a bunch of highly different dialects over a period of a few hundred years. Compare/contrast the Canterbury Tales and Sir Gawain, for instance. 82.44.212.6 14:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Middle English is not just the language spoken in 1300. This would imply establishing an arbitrary convention. Say that you would succeed, then what if another person chooses one Middle English from the late 1300s (closer to Chaucer) or 1400? Even establishing an arbitrary convention, you have to consider that at that point in time English has neither an established spelling nor a grammar, and that these would have to be established based, again, on some (other!) convention. Chaucer spoke one of the many dialects that are grouped under Middle English, but the term does not do justice to the linguistic reality of the time. --Mauro 23:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Standard English does not do justice to the linguistic reality of world English from Scots to Jamaican, but it still has a Wiki. ~Inkstersco 2 Jan 06
  • Oppose I agree with Mauro's commentary about the impossibility of defining a written convention of Middle English due to two facts: the fragmentation of Old English into a "mosaic" of dialects and the wide period of time Middle English covers. --Javier Carro 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There is a Wikipedia in English. Why have another one in a dead form of English? Why? Raetius 11:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Belgian man (nl na en) 16:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but as long as we can get authoritative experts on the subject, not just people pretending to write middle English, who have barely read a single Canterbury Tale.
  1. Uncle Davey
  • Oppose I think, the anglic article is already too much. Not another "old english". Senseless. Lib 00:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but with authoritative experts, or texts on the subject... Maybe the Wiki should include an explanation of grammatic and vocabulary conventions, I think that's similar to the Scots Wiki. --Agari 16:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbertese or Kiribati(an) (8 support; 3 oppose)

    • Most spoken language and official language in Kiribati, important language in Fiji, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu, important minority language in Nauru and Vanuatu. Belgian man 16:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On internet, there are at least 2 dictionaries en-gil, 3 gil-en and 1 course. Belgian man 21:07, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Kiribatese is the main language in Kiribati, the second language in Tuvalu, the sixth language in Fiji, the eighth or ninth language in Nauru, the forty-seventh language in the Solomon Islands and the sixty-third language in Vanuatu; all qua number of speakers. Belgian man 16:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I am busy with learning the language. Belgian man 16:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Template:New-language-template

West-palesian (3 support, 3 oppose)

Template:New-language-template

Comments.

Lak (5 support)

  • Language and code: en:Lak language, covered by the general cau-code in ISO-639-2; ISO-639-3: lbe. One of the six most used languages of Daghestan. Lakians originally live in the highlands of Dagestan and are one of the most outstanding historical nations of Caucasus with their exclusive culture and language (more info www.lakia.net, http:lakia.fastbb.ru).The language refers to the iberian- nakh lahguages group of the Caucasian family of languages and has its press (newspaper "Ilchi", info in Russian and some smaller newspapers in the districts with Lak majority) and national theatre.
  • Location(s) spoken: Daghestan and larger cities of ex-USSR (Baku, Tashkent, Moscow, etc.).
  • Proposed ___domain: lbe.wikipedia.org
  • Language file: preferably Russian, not English, because most Lak speakers can read Russian well.
  • Writing system: Cyrillic with additional sign "en:palochka".
  • Proposer: Slavik IVANOV
  • People interested joining:


Notes/comments:

It is not an easy task, you know; they say that they can't vote, can't register and what not... :( I have reminded them once more, let's hope. - Slavik IVANOV 22:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ladin

Novial (15 support, 1 opposes)

Pinjin

Template:New-language-template Pinyin is pure romanised standard mandarin Chinese and is an important step and bridge in the Chinese Education also for Chinese people self and more important for foreing people. It is necessary to know Pinyin to enter Chinese into computer systems!

The development of pinyin in the occidental world would favorisate the communication between the people of all world regions.

An important printed material exists for the language.

It has a considerably more impact as BASIC or simple English. Oui 22:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there is significant demand for a Wikipedia in Latin script among Chinese users - why not? But I wouldn't support it if was primarily intended to help foreigners learn the language (because that's not our mission here). Arbeo 15:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, it is ok. I will be clear about that, that a "book giving facts about every field of knowledge in ABC etc. order" (encyclopedia in BASIC English ;-) ) is not made truly with the to do chiefly with education but Wikipedia is in addition a place for education in the other parts of the Wikipedia undertaking, so that the two things have to be working together to get the thing done. Education get the sense of not same process of development in Asia as in Europe! Learning persons in Asia get only a small number of signs every year so that the full use of the complete number of signs necessary for free reading is very late. For this reason persons of Asia will make use of the second way of writing: the writing with letters of us (or other letters, for example in Japan). The users have in the long time of learning a separate producing of books in such writing. This books are a truly natural way in for languages of Asia! For India, the thing is not the same: the writing in the letters of us is a old way in in use in other time as a number of English persons did be in India. But this way in is still possible and would make the have in it better between the billion persons in India and the other men and women (writting coming before naturally in Basic English!) Oui 11:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I renonce definitively! Wikipedia will never act for handicapped people but is only a giant manipulation to erase the printing industry and worker of European countries... to Angela, to Anthere, already discussed with Ceasarion, theoreticaly preace but his infame "oppose" in Solresol is yet here!, erase all my contributions. Bye Oui 21:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustani

BASIC English

Solresol

Piacentino (1 support; 3 oppose; 1 doubt)

Template:New-language-template

Piacentino is similar to Emiliano but there are also a bit of differences as after all among the dialects of each Emilian province; so it would become quite hard to put together every local dialect in just 1 regional dialect. Ingc 14:07, 31 December 2005 (CET)

  • Doubt, the article seems to indicate that Piacentino is a dialect, and it seems to be a subdivision of Emilian. Neither Piacentino nor Emilian has an article on any other Wikipedia than it:. On the other hand, Emilian seems to belong to no other group, not to Ligurian, not to Piedmontese, not to Lombard. I will support a general Emilian Wikipedia. Caesarion 20:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I grew up in Piacenza and i'll appreciate so much this project. I can be able to do something to support this project, if i have the time necessary. I think, furthermore, that Piacentino is a dialect sufficiently different from Dialetto Lombardo and Dialetto Emiliano to create a project about this language. --Antani 10:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I can't find any evidence that Piacentino is to be considered a distinct language (e. g. try searching for "lingua piacentina" on the Internet). Most sources are me telling me it is part (dialect) of the Emiliano-Romagnolo regional language. In my humble opinion it's neither necessary nor reasonable to create a separate Wikipedia for each and every Italian province. Arbeo 18:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Not even the supporters call this a language. Most definitaly not used for writing scientific works. -- Raetius 11:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, Raetius... I didn't support either, but please, please keep in mind that the majority of all languages currently having a Wikipedia have seldom or never been used for scientific writing before. And yet some of them are booming. Caesarion 11:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Majority - I don't know but maybe a few, you might be right. But also think about how close this dialect is to Italian and how beneficial standardised languages are if you want to collect and distribute knowledge like we do here. If think it's very praiseworthy if people speak their local dialect but I doubt that it's always the right option for writing an encyclopedia, especially if there is a very close standard language. I'm not talking about cases like Basque, Breton or Maori here, they are a different matter. -- Raetius 12:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, we can agree about that, but keep in mind that many regional languages in Europe are called dialects just because of the existence of a national state and a strong standardised language. This has been the case in Spain for a long time, and this is still the case in the Netherlands Germany, France and Italy a.o. (vz. Limburgish, Walloon and other Wikipedias). However, I am under the impression that this Piacentino is just a dialect of a much bigger regional language, and I think that you should really stop somewhere when granting different regional languages a Wikipedia. Btw I'd love to see some general guidelines of what we should accept and what we shouldn't - I think I'll propose some soon. Caesarion 13:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are already other cases of wiki in dialects, such as Napoletano, Lombardo, Friulano, Veneto, Sardo, Siciliano and so on; so i don't understand what differences of causes there are; to accept some dialects or regional languages and other ones no? Ingc 17:33, 21 Jan 2006 (CET)

COMMENT Here is the difference... Neapolitan, Lombard, Sicilian, Venetian, Sardinian, etc. are languages (not dialects). In the modern world, most people think of Italy as a country that has "always been there." But please remember that Italy was NOT a country until 1860. Before this, existed the Kingdom of Sicily, the Kingdom of Naples, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the Kingdom of Sardinia, the Republic of Venice, the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, etc. In these individual kingdoms included their own languages, cultures, customs, histories, and in some cases, banks, currencies, armies and navies. One needs to keep in mind that nearly three thousand years of documented history existed in this area of the Mediterranean basin before the Italian state was born in 1860!

For the above mentioned reasons, the linguistic situation in present day, modern Italy is a very complex issue. There were pre-Romance languages that existed before the Roman Empire spread its Latin language. Later, Latin broke down into different variations across different regions. Complicating this factor is that in the north, non Romance languages like Germanic, Slavic, and Gallic advanced. In the south, Spanish, French, and non Romance languages like Albanian and Greek added their characteristics, and in some cases replacing the Latin variations. Finally, in the islands (Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica), there was Spanish, French, Greek, Arabic, and Turkish influence amongst others of less dominance.

How can all of these languages, variations, and dialects be organized, if they can even be organized at all? One highly respected reference is Ethnologue. One of the most respected sources of linguistic classification in Italy is Giovan Battista Pellegrini and his "Carta dei dialetti d'Italia", 1977, based on the work of "Sprach-und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz", 1928-1940. Click on the above link to see the map of how the languages are organized. Not surprisingly, the map closely follows the historical development of pre-Italy. The Kingdom of Sicily, including the peninsular portions of Calabria, and Puglia (Salento), compose the "Extreme Southern Language Group" referred to as Sicilian language. The Kingdom of Naples, including the capital of Naples, surrounding Campania, northern Calabria, northern Puglia, all of Basilicata, Molise, Abruzzo, southern Marche, and southeastern Lazio, compose the "Intermediate Southern Language Group" referred to as Neapolitan language. The former Papal States, including Rome, Lazio, Umbria, and central Marche, make up the "Southern Language Group" referred to as Romanesco. The list goes on.

While there may be wide differences among the dialects in this various language groupings, this can be expected. There will always be great linguistic diversity in Italy, but the above sources adequately organize these groups. Some characteristics are more subtle than others, but cacuminal dd is a trademark of the Sicilian group, while the schwa sound makes famous Neapolitan. And based upon some of these examples, there is no reason to carve out or create subdialects or dialects from variations of languages. Ethnologue, and the above map should clearly be used as a guide for linguistic organization and classification in Italy. If for no other reason, these references should be used by Wikepedia to create and ensure some sort of uniformity and standardization when dealing with the complex linguistic situation in Italy today.

Allowing Piacentino or Tarantino (dialects) to be used by Wikepedia (as languages) would be equivalent to allowing Western Sicilian, Pantesco, Central Metafonetica, Eastern Nonmetafonetica, Southeast Metafonetica, Messinese, Eolian, Central/Southern Calabro, Salentino, Tirrenic, Neapolitan proper, Cilentan, Southern Lazio, Central Lucanian, Norhwest/Northeast Lucanian, Archaic Calabro-Lucanian, Northern Calabrese, Apulo-Barese, Garganic, Dauno-Appenninic, Molisan, Teraman, Eastern Adriatic Abruzzese, Western Abruzzese, and Southern Marchigian all as languages instead of simply just Neapolitan or Sicilian. VingenzoTM

REPLY About the things you said in last comment, I have to underline that there are also some cases of Wikipedia that aren't properly languages such as Corso, a "language" spoken by not more than 275.000 people and not so different from Sardo. Moreover the Neapolitan is few more that a provincial dialect, so i don't see so different allowing Neapolitan and the chance to allow Piacentino Wikipedia. I'm quite sure that in few months it could get the interests of many Users and reach a respectable number of articles. Ingc 0:19, 9 Feb 2006 (CET)

  • OPPOSE - I oppose starting a new Wikipedia in Piacentino, but I do support a new Wikipedia in Emilian language it:Dialetto Emiliano.

According to Ethnologue it is a separate language, belonging to the branch of the Western Romance Languages, and is also the only Gallo-Italic language that has no Wikipedia. We have Lombard, Ligurian, Venetian, Neapolitan, Sicilian and Sardinian edition. Why shouldn't we start a new Emilian Wikipedia? It's a matter of equity. Data for Emiliano ISO 639-1 {{{iso1}}} ISO 639-2 roa SIL EML (EN) SIL {{{sil2}}} We could create template for each variety and put it at the beginning of each article, as some other Wikipedias have done (ex. Lombard and Rumantsch). Having a new Wikipedia in Emilian could save this language from dying out steadily and help its three main varieties (Western, Central, Southern and Northeastern Emilian as well as Romagnolo) to be joined together and to melt into a unique variety.

REPLY I quite agree with the last proposal, that talks about creating an Emilian Wikipedia including a template for each variety in each article; I also think that it would be better split the emilian in more varieties of those ones specified in the prevouius opinion. About the ISO 639-1 i think it is very important that it represent very well the varietes included in Emilian language; so if it isn't yet specifed in official documents, i propose to use (EM) instead of (EN) and i believe that it would be better to use the ISO 639-1 for the main URL. Ingc 4 Mar 2006, 1h26 (CET)

Tarantino (4 support)

Template:New-language-template Request made in this diff December 28, 2005 20:33

  • Support:I'm Pugliese too and I would like so much the Tarantino to be an official language 82.59.9.56 December 28, 2005 21:12
  • Support:I think that this dialect is somewhat different by italian. Sometimes turists think tarantian dialect may be a sort of arabic language. Even if it has some morphological simile with the neapolitan language, it sounds completly strange for neapolitan people, infact they cannot understand each other if they speack quickly and with their own intonation. Its' amazing to see how the tarantinian people has become attached to their traditions and their customs. I think that a Tarantinian Wikipedia may be the best thing to emprove the popularization of the language of Taranto. Beren85 December 28, 2005 21:51
  • Support basically it would be usefull to have a separate wiki even if I suppose we will not get enough people being able to edit such a wiki. On the nap wikipedia I was asked if we could integrate it there - well: if we find the right way to structure it, I would say: we can integrate local "minority languages" on any wikipedia. In some way I am thinking in the direction of the namespace manager and/or wikidata right now. We could also create portals that care about the single minority languages within a language code. It would make sense since the language of that specific town/region/city would be preserved. I know for a fact that writing and pronunciation from one place to the other within the "nap" language code region can differ a lot - even between Maiori where I live and Amalfi there are some basic differences. So: we just must find the right way to do things. I will come back on this matter after having talked with some poeple trying to understand how we could make this local language happen. --Sabine 15:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... as soon as I posted this we had someone who signed with "Nico" who told us ma chi ve lo ha detto che il napoletano si parla in Calabria e in Pugliavulite pazzia'?!Nico' (without logging in) ... for now that user was blocked for spamming ... sorry ... but some people do not seem to understand. If this Nico' is around here: please contact me. - First of all: I would very much support this wikipedia because I know that it is a different language, but we have that strange situation that Pugliese is not known as a language of its own. Even if we cannot compare this problem directly to Sardinian, it is somewhat similar. Following Ethnologue Pugliese is part of "Italian" as a dialect. Following linguistic maps it belongs to the Neapolitan language group. Now Apulia is quite a big region with a huge variety of dialects or better languages since a language is a dialect and nothing else (or say it the other way round if you want).
I heard that there is an ISO standard for proposal ISO 639-6 that is for dialects - so I will try to find out if there is already some kind of code we could use. The next thing is: what to do if for now there is no way to start this wikipedia - well the next version of the Mediawiki software includes a Namespace Manager that can be of help in that specific situation. So please: before getting angry and saying that we say that Tarandíne is part of Neapolitan understand that it is not us, but that organisations that are about language codes and linguistics do that. Personally I am, like many others I suppose, for giving the possibility to write articles in this language - so if the wikipedia should not be possible, we will simply find a way to do it. Wikipedia is about NPOV and giving the possibility to all people to read encyclopaedic articles in their language ... well we are geting closer and closer to a stage where this will be really possible. But please also understand that sometimes it is not easy to create a wikipedia for a language where there is no official recognition. Thanks! --Sabine 21:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Polabian/Wendish (3 support; 7 oppose)

Template:New-language-template

Comments

I propose this language, because of the interest of my friends from Slavic countries and Eastern Germany. The Wikipedia page written in Polabian could be an important platform for the people interested in their own origins and nearly forgotten traditions (a large number of the onomastic richness of Eastern Germany testifies its Slavic origin). This Wikipedia would contain a dictionary to facilitate the use of the page. The scripture should be based on the scripture used in the scientific literature. I do not believe that there would be a revival movement of this language similar to the case of Cornish, but I just want to support the conscience, how this language looks like and that it may be understood by Slavic speakers and invite other interested people to participate or just to learn something about Polabian

Pfälzisch (6 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral)

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

  • Support - Belgian man (nl na en) 13:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Caesarion Dear anonymous user, did you post a message about this at de:Wikipedia:Fragen zur Wikipedia? 13:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, because I would like to get more information. But I've added the template above and the links to articles about the language, where there was only a poor paragraph to request. German users are the key for this request. I hope they will have some interest for it, and find enough native or advanced users to help it. :o) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • moderate Support. I love the language, several near to me use it every day. I cannot support it as an author because I'm not in sufficient command of the language. Hint: Approved_requests_for_new_languages has a section titled Pennsylvania German which is a closely related yet distinct language. Purodha Blissenbach 01:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Who on earth would benefit from a Wikipedia in this German dialect? Not a single person because _every_ single speaker knows High German just as well or better. I don't live there but I bet when they write something down they write it down not in dialect but in High German like just everybody else in German. High German has specialised terms for all fields of science, the dialects mostly don't. The High German wikipedia will always be a source of information many times bigger and better then the Pfälzisch one - so the Pfälzisch one will actually be useless. I could go on with a few more points but I think it's enough now. -- Raetius 11:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have had some very similar discussions before: Pfälzisch should be considered a seperate language - and would, if the concepts of Germany, Germans and "the" German language didn't exist. Caesarion 13:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Pfälzisch is not a separate language, just a specifing mispronouncing of a German province. Moreover, where should this trend to create new splitted WPs lead? 84.163.38.161 21:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC) non-argument, should not be taken seriously[reply]
    • Sorry, but if still have the dumb conviction that regioanl languages are "mispronunciations" of standard languages, you have absolutely NO business here!!! Dialects are older, much, much older, than standard languages, start reading at least something about West Germanic dialects before you ever do one edit to this page again! Caesarion 23:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as it was said, no one there would write down something in that dialect. The only German Dialects which are sometimes used as a written language are (AFAIK) Lower German and Swiss German, which both have already a Wikipedia. Everyone who speaks/understands Pfälzisch can also understand High German and get information at de:. That Pfälzisch Wikipedia would only be a copy of some easy "translated" de: articles to have many language links in the articles in High German. --Steffen Löwe Gera 09:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it wouldn't. Any new Wikipedia is created of its own. The Limburgic Wikipedia is not just an easy translation of the Dutch Wikipedia, neither are the Platt and Alemannic Wikipedias, even though they all know German and write it with more ease than their own vernacular language. Any natural language (and Pfälzisch is a language of its own indeed!) deserves to be written down and cultivated, no matter whether it suffers low prestige or the presence of a standard language. The only thing we should be worried about is whether there are contributors for it, or perhaps if the proposed Wikipedia will not be redundant with an existing project. Caesarion 09:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No need for this. It's not Wikipedia's business to cultivate languages. All Pfälzisch speakers benefit from the German Wikipedia just as much as all the other German speakers do. That should suffice. – Jondor 13:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be WP's business to cultivate languages, but it certainly is Wikipedia's business to help out those who cultivate their languages and give them the opportunity to make their own Wikipedia. Mr. Jondor, all Catalan speakers can use the Spanish Wikipedia very well, but the Catalan Wikipedia was created on the very same day as the Spanish was. So not allowing certain languages their own Wikipedias goes counter to the policy Wikipedia has been leading for five years now. Caesarion 13:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • SupportI am a native speaker of Palatian, and would help with a palatian Wiki, whether it exists. If the alemannic wikipedia has a "right to exist", I would say a Palatian would have it, too. I would also propose another language code. PAL would be more apposite than PFL. If you aquate the "ä" with the "a", PAL would be the first three letters of te language name in English (Palatinate), and in Palatian itself (Pälzisch). PaelzerBu 13:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just changed the title, cause I had counted six supports, and not just five ;-) --de:Benutzer:SPS 13.02.2006 12:46 (CET)
  • Oppose - Pfälzisch is German. There is one common standard for writing German that covers all regional spoken variants. No other standard than Hochdeutsch is ever used in non-fictional texts (for good reasons, I guess). Ignoring this fact and trying to create Wikipedias for all different spoken "Germans" will very probably lead to a plethora of incomplete, unreliable wikis of inferior quality forever redundant with the mutually intelligible, first-rate standard German WP. Nichts gegen Lokalpatriotismus - but I'd strongly disencourage such a development. Arbeo 17:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balinese (5 support, 2 oppose)

(proposer is unknown Belgian man (nl na en) 18:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • ISO code: ban
  • Relevant links:
  • Notes/comments:
    • Number of speakers: 3.8 million people mostly in Indonesia
moved irrelevant political statements to discussion page

Rarotongan (2 support)

  • Link to request on mailing list:
  • ISO code: mi-ck rar
  • Proposer: Scott Gall 08:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • People interested joining:
  • Speakers: 43 000 in Cook Islands, French Polynesia and New Zealand
  • Relevant links:
  • Notes/comments:
    • Another request by Scott Gall with complete absence of native speakers, fluent speakers, or even advanced learners. Should be denied, along with all past and future requests from him. --Node ue 16:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The two might look as if they were the same, both of them being called Maori, but they both have their differences. We could move the New Zealand Maori Wikipedia to mi-nz.wikipedia.org. Scott Gall 08:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Scott Gall, after a few weeks, the link you mentioned above to an article on Cook Island Maori is still idle. Could you write that article, please. I think many of us are interested in the particular differences and similarities between New Zealand Maori and Cook Island Maori.--Caesarion 15:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I created a redirect to the article on the Rarotongan language five minutes ago. Rarotongan and Cook Island Maori are the same as each other, but not the same as New Zealand Maori. Scott Gall 04:27, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • So "rar" is better. (16 Mar 2005)
          • OK then. rar.wikipedia.org it is. Some New Zealanders call it Cook Island Maori, possibly because it's similar to Maori and the Cook Islands are part of New Zealand. Scott Gall 00:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • It's no more similar to Maori than is Samoan. The reason some people call it Cook Island Maori is out of ignorance. --Node ue 16:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • I can't see a difference between Cook Island Maori and Rarotongan either. NazismIsntCool 08:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Belgian man 21:04, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Strong Support Actually Rarotongan is one of the dialectal variation of Cook Islands Maori. The others dialects are the one of Ngaputoru (Atiu, Mauke, Mitiaro), Mangaia, Aitutaki, Rakahanga-Manihiki, Penrhyn (reo tongareva). There is a complete intelligibility between all these dialects. The only exception in Cook Islands is the language of Pukapuka which is closer to Samoan and the language of the three atolls of Tokelau. According to the Cook Islands Legislation (te reo Maori act 2003), Maori

"(a) Means the Maori language (including its various dialects) as spoken or written in any island of the Cook Islands; and

(b) Is deemed to include Pukapukan as spoken or written in Pukapuka; and

(c) Includes Maori that conforms to the national standard for Maori approved by Kopapa Reo"

http://www.paclii.org/ck/legis/num_act/trma2003130/

There is no intelligibility with tahitian and New Zealand Maori

I think mi-ck or mck would be the best choice. I'm not sure that people from outer islands would appreciate if you use rar for rarotongan. Moreover, they probably would not participate to it or it would create useless debates. There are no official census of the number of speakers but I think they must be about 30000 including those living in New Zealand, Australia or other parts of the world. If you create a wikipedia in Cook Islands Maori, people there would appreciate even if I do not think there will be hundreds of articles everyday. It will take time. I have a basic knowledge of the language but it would be better if a Cook Islander start it. It should not be too difficult to find. They also call it "te reo ipukarea", litterally "the language of ancestral homeland". So why not "ip-ck"...????

fr:Utilisateur:Nevers

Buryat (28 supports for "Buryat")

Template:New-language-template

Why did you change the initial request (Buryat language, bua) to Russian Buryat (bxr)? All the persons who voted before you have voted for "Bruryat language". I change my vote to Oppose. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(answered on talk page Hégésippe) Belgian man (nl na en) 16:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Code of Buryat language is bua http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_language.asp?code=MNB Please rollback changes
No I won't rollback these changes, because the link you gave is a page in Ethnologue 14. This information is ancient; click on "corresponding entry" please. Belgian man (nl na en) 16:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=== South Azerbaijan === Azerbaijan South(Guney Azerbaijan)

Template:New-language-template

Comments
If the South Azerbaijan use only arabic script, maybe use both scripts, as the Ladino Wikipedia.--Taichi - (あ！) 05:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with the opposer Taichi.
  • This is the language of the people who have a very long history of civilisation and saing that it is a dialect (from what?) is funny (or even silly) we are not talking about political references (not strong enough to be argued) this is the language of 40,000,000 people who are living in this real world (if not say how). This is not about me or your wishes or hopes.
  • User:BayBak somewhat clarifies the situation on his userpage: he wants to start an Azeri Wikipedia in Arabic script. Due to the shorthand-like nature of the Arabic script, it is impossible to write mutual script convertors for Latin script and Arabic script Azeri, so a seperate Wikipedia does make sense. However, I want to see some more native speakers supporting this initiative before I give my support. Caesarion 13:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zazaki (30 Support, 20 Oppose, 3 Neutral)

Template:New-language-template

Coments
I propose to choose one, Maviulke: Kirmanjki or Dimli. Belgian man (nl na en) 16:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dimli (Southern Zazaki) and Kirmanjki (Northern Zazaki) are mutually understandable. Together, they form Zaza branch of Zaza-Gorani Languages grup. --Maviulke12 16:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Taichi regarding to ___domain name. As the proposer of Zazaki Wikipedia, I

changed the ___domain name to <<diq.wikipedia.org>>.--Maviulke12 21:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support -- I wholeheartedly support the creation of a Zazaki wikipedia. I hope it will attract as many people as it can and it will develop into a good source of Zazaish language in Internet. Mirzali (N) 15:33, 17 January 2006
I strongly support the creation of a Zazaki wikipedia! I think it's a good idea to have a separate wikipedia on mentioned language, because it is independent from other Iranian languages such as Kurdish, Persian, Balochi etc.
"Languages are the chief distinguishing marks of people. No people in fact comes into being until it speaks a language of its own; let the languages perish and the people perish too, or become different people. But that never happens except as the result of oppression and distress." Mirzali (N) 00:15, 18 January 2006
  • Support -- I support zaza.wikipedia.org mavzer (N) from Anatolia. Mavzer destê de mı de na koon de cêreno,Ezo ke Partizano, dano dısmeni rê.
  • Oppose, strongly oppose. --Erdal Ronahi 22:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC) The reason is this: There are some people who continously vandalize the Kurdish, the Turkish, the German and the English Wikipedia on Zaza-related pages. Now they seem to have come to Meta, where they are not so well known. I am an administrator of the Kurdish Wikipedia. Most Zaza-speakers regard Zaza as a dialect of Kurdish. Therefore we have created a Zaza-Mainpage in the Kurdish Wikipedia. We have created a category. We can create a namespace. But: These people have not yet written ONE single article in their language/dialect. If they would, we can discuss about splitting the Kurdish Wikipedia. But I strongly disbelieve they have the intention to create an encyclopedia in Zazakî. See the following edit diff to get a hint what I am talking about: [12] My proposal: They are invited to write 100 articels in the Kurdish Wikipedia, THEN let's split it.[reply]


I agree with Erdal, Mesopotamia, and Caesarion. Since most Zazaki-speakers and all of Kurmanci-speakers regard Zazaki as a dialect of Kurdish we can work in the Kurdish Wikipedia, it's better for us all.

On the other hand while despite of existence of a special section for Zazaki these people wrote nothing notable there, I am really suspisious of this action.

Please be logic.


I do not agree with the opposers.

1) en:Ethnologue lists Zazaki as a different language, not a dialect of any language:[13]

2 en:Ethnologue also list Zazaki dialects "Sivereki, Kori, Hazzu (Hazo), Motki (Moti), Dumbuli (Dumbeli)."[14]

3) Here is another source that says Zazaki is a different langauge. Extra, Guus. and Gorter, Durk. The Other Languages of Europe.[15]

4 Moreover, the US State Department "Background Note" lists Zaza as one of the major languages of Turkey, along with Turkish (official), Kurdish, Armenian, Greek, and Arabic. [16]. Zazaki Language is indeed a distinct language. --69.107.107.182 00:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Erdal, how could you blame me for something that I did not do. I do not know who vandalized that article. I never ever vandalized anything, and it is not my character. You should take your words back.

Moreover, Zazas did not realized you have a Zazaki category simply because their language and your language are not mutually understandable. Plus, Ethnologue denies your and other opposer's claims about Zazaki, and Zazaki has its own language code (diq). Please show respect to other languages and do not be political. Your opposition is clearly political, not scientific, and you do not have any valid acamdemic sources to support your claim. Why shouldn't Zazaki Language speakers have their own encyclopedia? Are you gonna deny more than 2 Million people to have their first encyclpedia beacuse somebody vandalized an article? Plus, we do not know whether the vandalizer is a Zaza. Even if the vandalizer were a Zaza, more than 2 Million people cannot be responsible. So, your arguments are not valid. I am sure that you know very painful history of Zaza people in Turkey, and it is actually your duty to support us since we fought together.


Dear Meta-Wiki community, Zazaki is a different language; moreover, it has its own dialects. This is proven above by citations, and these citations are academic, not politic. For 75 years, this language was banned in Turkey until 2003, and thanks to European Union this language is now a free language. In the past 75 years, Zazaki books recalled and systematically removed from the public use. People who spoke this language are persecuated and put in prisons just for speaking it. Please, at least, give this language its own distinct place. I assure you that the first Zazaki Language Encyclopedia will flourish if you give its distinct place. --Maviulke12 01:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you adress me directly, I will answer directly. I clearly do not know who kept vandalizing ku with anti-Kurdish and pro-Zaza statements, since they were anonymous. So I didnt mean to blame Maviulke12 personally.
I have not opposed to splitting the Kurdish Wikipedia, I have opposed splitting it NOW. This thread shows perfectly well what has happend in the past 2 years in several Wikipedias (ku, tr, de, en). Long, very long quotes are posted to support the claim that Zazaki is a diffenrent language, but NOTHING substantial is being written IN that language. Almost all of the Zazaki articles in ku were posted there by ME. You are all invited to create a lot of articles there and then I will even help you to split if necessary. Furthermore you cannot claim to speak for all Zaza speakers, a lot of them would want to keep Zazaki inside the Kurdish Wikipedia. I myself would clearly make sure that everything published on a possibe diq or zaz Wikipedia will get included into ku, too. --Erdal Ronahi 14:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a proponent, of course you only quote sources that support your opinion ;-). But anyway, Ethnologue very often turns dialects into separate languages, as it did with many Low Saxon variants in the Netherlands, for example. If you weren't allowed to write in Zaziki at the Kurdish Wikipedia, I certainly would support a Wikipedia in Zaziki (as long as enough people show their interest, of course). Now I won't, unless you can convince me that it is impossible or highly undesirable to have these two variants in one single Wikipedia. Caesarion 09:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Caesarion, then quote academic sources that prove your arguments. We supported our arguments with academic citations. If they can support their claims with academic sources, we are not going to object their offer. If you look carefully to ethnologue’s classification, you will see Zazaki is not under any language, and this proves Zazaki is not a dialect.
Moreover, when there isn’t any academic proof that supports yours and others arguments, and when enough people show interest in Zazaki Wikipedia, you and others can hardly object our project. --209.129.169.111 23:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: http://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategor%C3%AE:Zazak%C3%AE certainly seems to provide an incubator for articles written in Zazaki. There don't currently appear to me to be enough of these to really merit starting another Wikipedia. -- en:user:Jmabel 14:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. But I think that Erdal Ronahi's idea to develop articles in Zazaki language on Kurdish Wikipedia is a good idea. Then, if there are enough proofs for a need of a separate Wikipedia, another project could be launched. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 15:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • support -- I support zazaki.wikipedia fadime (N) 20:01, 19 January 2006

Dear friends and participants,

I support creating a Zaza-Wikipedia. Since 100 years Zazaki is from linguists as an own language recognized, first time proven by Iranist Oskar Mann, his analizes and researches were 1932 relased as book "Mundarten der Zâzâ" by Karl Hadank 1932. 1985 T.L. Tood released a grammar book "A grammar of Dimili (also known as Zaza)" in Michigan. 1998 there were 2 dissertations (thesis) released in Germany by Ludwig Paul (University Göttingen) and Zülfü Selcan (University Berlin). 2002 the first Zaza-Language institute was founded in Frankfurt/Main. In short, it is by far a prejudice and ignorant stereotype especcialy in Turkey that Zaza-Language is a Kurdish dialect. But it is until today not proven and this unscientific "dialect" idea is only defended by Kurdish nationalists, also by some Turkish nationalists. I would like to ask the "strong opposing" Kurdish friends here: Would you have accepted writing in Persian Wikipedia until Kurdish Wikipedia was been opened (or another Iranian Language). Surely Kurdish is a own language with Kurmanji, Sorani and South-Kurdish (Feyli, Kelhori). We don't allow us the any luxury to declare the Kurdish language as a Persian or Zaza-dialect. But the same sensibility and solidarity we expect from our Kurdish freinds. I don't know where some do take the right from to determine over a language. Did any Zaza tried to prevent you from your activity about and for the Kurdish language?

With best regards, Asmêno Bêwayir 2nd chairman of the Zaza-Language Institute Frankfurt/Main


Our language Zaza

By Faruk Iremet

Why this work? One might ask. It’s all because our language Zaza is said to be a dialect. Through my work I want to show the big difference between our language Zaza and other languages. The little dictionary after the article may be helpful for various authorities and others, so that the Zaza language not will be mixed up with other languages. I hope my little work will be helpful, and it's my duty as a Zaza to make the facts known.

The difference between Zaza, Kurdish and Turkish

To find similarities between two languages, you have to check which languages they come from and developed from. You do that by studying old words and expressions. It's for that reason linguistic researchers always investigate the original words, such as the names of flowers, animals, natural phenomena and the grammar structure. In that way the research-workers define and reinforce their theories about a language's origin.

A language's development starts with images. Mankind developed the written language through images. The pictures became the foundation of the written language. At the same time language has become the key for communication among people.

Mankind's social life begins with the clan. People who landed up in remote regions, away from the clan, took with them their language's character. Banishments, coercion transfers, exile or pure love of adventure are some of the factors that have made people meet other cultures. When mankind entered unknown provinces, it also caused the spread of the language.

Thomas Young, linguistic researcher, submitted in 1813 his theory in the following way: "Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Celtic, Germanic, and Persian (Iranian) are from the same group of languages". He has given this group the name "The Indo-European language". According to Young, those who speak Indo-European languages are "Aryan"

(To read, go to: http://zazapress.tripod.com/english/English.html#farukiremet)

The Zaza language has borrowed words and has been affected by ethnic groups who have settled down between the Euphrates and the Tigris (Mesopotamia) in front of and behind the Zaza people. These following languages, for example, have had influence on the Zaza: Persian, Armenian, Hurish, Hitish, Sumerian, Greek and Turkish. In contemporary Zaza, borrowed words exist and are used. That doesn't mean that Zaza is a dialect of these languages. The presence of borrowed words in a language doesn't prove that it is a dialect. The land of the Zaza people has been at the centre of wars and capitulations, the Silk Road and a place for rest for nomadic people. This is the reason why the Zaza has been enriched with words from other languages. Neither the Zaza people's cultural life nor their language has been substantially affected, and the changes have not been lasting ones.

In Europe some "intellectual" Zaza people attempt to form theories about the Zaza language. They want to see the Zaza as a dialect of some other languages. This shows that they haven’t fully understood the Zaza language and the culture . If they really want to see Zaza as a dialect, and if they do their research properly, they cannot overlook the fact that Zaza is close to the Persian language (because it belongs to the Indo-Iranian language-group). So, is it not more logical to say that Zaza is a Persian dialect ? There remains just one more thing; they would have to prove this with historical research. Researchers in the Indo-European language have, with their work, presented and proved that Zaza is one of the older languages spoken in the Middle East. If one reads the works of Oscar Mann, Karl Hadank, CI.J.Rich, A.V.Le Coq and Peter Lerch about languages, one can see that according to these linguistic researchers Zaza is a separate language.

In page 4780 in the book "Encyclopaedia of languages and linguistics" one finds the following "The languages spoken in Turkey are Turkish, Kurdish (Kurmanchi), ZAZA, Cherkess, Ayhbas, Laz, Georgian, Arabic, Armenian e.t.c". Further down on the same page one can read "Turkish is spoken throughout the country. Kurdish, with its dialects, and Zaza are spoken mainly in eastern and south-eastern Anatolia". In the same book one can read this sentence: "the illiterate speakers (principally women and children) of Kurdish, Zaza etc in rural regions, are generally monolingual". In other words, they speak Zaza or Kurdish and they don't understand each other. If one opens at "Zaza" in this ten-volumed encyclopaedia, one sees Zaza in the list of world languages , in other words, not among the dialects. Under "Zaza" it says "see Dimli" and there it says briefly that it is an Iranian, Indo-Arian or Indo-European language. Accordingly the Zaza is not a Kurdish, Turkish, Assyrian, Armenian, Persian or Arabic dialect. When they speak about Zaza they speak about a language, not a dialect.

One should not think that we are just copying the ideas of European linguistic researchers and relying on their works to convince the public that our language is not a dialect. On the contrary we turn to our people. If we ask about our "dialect" Zaza the answer will indeed be interesting. If we ask such a question to a Zaza ( who doesn’t speak either Turkish nor Kurdish):

-Tı bı kamcin lehçeya qısey kenê/kena? (Which dialect do you speak?). The first reaction from the Zaza will most likely be a smile, and he/she will ask this question back:

-Lehçe çıçi yo? (What’s a dialect?). But if we change the question and put it this way:

-Tı bı kamcin zıwana qısey kenê/kena? (Which language do you speak?). The answer will be:

-Ez bı zıwanê Zazaki qısey kena. (I speak Zaza). This question I myself have asked and their laughter over the word dialect I still can't forget. Can they who have Zaza as a mother tongue without manipulation put such a question to their parents?

Now we shall see which answer our "intellectual" university graduate will give.

Language: What the people think and feel can bring a mutual communication key. If one uses the theory of Stalin one explains language in this way: "Jointly language is the foundation of a nation". In other words, a people who are a nation also have a joint language.

Dialect: Language in local design. A dialect is a part of a language and doesn’t differ so much from its mother tongue. What differs is the pronunciation and some local expressions. (E.g. Sausage/Körv, Good/ Gött).

The Swedish and the Norwegian languages are so close to each other that it would be better to say they are one language with different dialects. But, when the Swedes talk about the Norwegian language, they don’t say that Norwegian is a dialect of Swedish, but a totally separate language.

Another example is the Finnish language. Finns never say that Estonian, Lettish and Lithuanian are dialects of Finnish. (These languages are very close to each other). This is because these countries have their own states. If I should give a simple explanation of how I perceive the modern definition of a language to be, I would say as follows:

Language: The communication key between a people who have a state, a flag and an army is called language.

Dialect: A people that don’t have a state, a flag (maybe exists but is not accepted) or an army is called a dialect.

I can’t avoid joking here. I know it is a very interesting explanation, but it seems to fit in to today’s society.

In order to explain my attitude I’m forced to go back in time. Maybe in such a way that you, at first, might not understand what all this history has to do with this. I have to rely on your patience, dear reader. The pieces of the puzzle will fall into place. Before the renaissance in Europe, before the reforms in the 16th century, Copernicus (1473-1543) wrote his theories about the solar system. When he wrote down his theory and publicised it, he provoked the church and was sentenced to death. Copernicus just said this: "The world doesn’t stand still on its ___location, on the contrary it twists in its course and in the suns course. The orbit around the sun takes a year." Copernicus, like Galileo, couldn't rescue himself out of the clutches of the church, the priests and the fundamentalists. After Copernicus, Galileo Galilee (1564-1642) with his research, helped and given his time renewal?? (I don’t understand what this sentence is supposed to mean). The standpoint of his research was "Dynamics". In one way Copernicus and Galileo were able to rescue themselves from the courts of inquisition. Their destiny was not that of Giordano Brunos. After seven years in prison, G.B. was burned alive. Up until the year 1835 it was forbidden to print or publish books that claimed that the earth turns around the sun. Books that nonetheless succeeded to reach the readers were burned. For 200 years the church forbade such ideas.

"When mankind thinks then it is free or can become free" says Albert Bayet. What a beautiful explanation of the whole. When mankind can' t freely think and develop its opinions, and when new theories cannot be developed from free thoughts, then mankind is not free. Therefore free thoughts and theories must be expressed, be brought up for discussion without obstacles. Then one can develop the thoughts even more and maybe see what what is correct or wrong. The other important question is whether opinions can be correct or wrong? No, correct or wrong do not exist. Here I think as J.P. Satre and Shakespeare. "Correct or wrong do not exist. What is wrong for me can be correct for somebody else and what is correct for me can be wrong for somebody else." If we accept this theory, we can understand each other and then we can sit down and proceed with our discussion. When we speak badly of each other, calling each other traitors, speak about each other without knowledge, we just show a person’s empty innate quality. Reading books or getting an employment in government service doesn’t mean that one is automatically an intellectual person. In order to become a renewer and an intellectual one has to be able to listen without prejudice and really want to try to understand other people’s opinions. Only in being together and in a constant discussion with other people can one’s thoughts be developed. Furthermore it demands a big portion of courage. Courage to express one’s opinions and courage to take in others opinions. It also demands courage to stand up for the opinions one really believes in. Just saying ‘yes’ all the time doesn’t help anybody , because then nothing can develop further. intellectualism indeed put its demands on the intellectuals.

We just try to express opinions that many not have dared to express for years, other than in close friends company. From the night's treacherous dark deep, from the tyrants blood-sucking claws, from the mist we will pull out our free thoughts and tell where our roots come from. This can just be done with the courage to express our opinions and the courage to listen.

During the 13th century Aristotle’s ideas and thoughts were forbidden. Those who read the philosopher’s publications got the death sentence like a gift. What happened during this long period? What changes did we experience? Could the ideas of Aristotle, Galileo, Copernicus, Copernic, Nicolas d'Autrecourt, Civan Aucassin, Michel Servet and Giordano Brunos be destroyed? (Not forgetting the fact that the free thoughts of Michel Servet and Giordano Brunos and their longing for free thoughts led to their burning). No! Could oppression and torture change mankind's free thoughts? Were not these philosophers called the children of Satan and morons? Now it’s time to look at the following question a little closer. -Yes, what happened during these years? Who judges history today? The young knight La Barne was killed by order of the church. What had he done? His crime was that he had read "The dictionary of philosophy", which the church had banned. Do you know what happened to the young knight? First his tongue was cut out and then his head was separated from his body. Thereafter his dead body was tossed on the fire. The young man who was treated so cruelly, was guilty of reading a banned book. We are not equally bestial today, or?

In this way some of the European intellectuals express themselves over the reactionary opinions and fanatic political ideas:

Montesquieu; "A reactionary opinion is a backward opinion."

Voltaire; "Reactionary opinions have coloured the world with blood."

Diderot; "A reactionary opinion is a opinion that make me sick."

Helvetius; "A reactionary opinion means, like a knife, worries for mankind."

I think that those who put obstacles in the way of the development of the Zaza language and culture are equally reactionary. I think that the statements of these European philosophers are still true today.

Voltaire also says; "If mankind not can say its opinions freely in a society, then the people can not talk about freedom." Dear reader, now you maywonder; -Why do you write about these things we already know about? If you are wondering just this, I answer you; -That which was experienced in the 13th and the 19th century is actually not just of historic interest. It still continues today in our developed society. In todays society, it is however not only the spokesmen of God who ban opinions, but above all the great god of the ageCapitalism. It is said that we learn from history, but occasionally one wonders.

I will now try to abbreviate my discussion. Despite "mud-throwing philosophy", new modern torture methods and oppression methods during history, it has not been possible to kill free thought. Our work for the language and culture of the Zaza people has already caused disturbances in many reactionary and nationalistic circles. Let me answer those who do not want to listen to what I want to say. I want to say to those who, rather than objectively discuss, begin a "pie-throwing contest"; we don’t want to throw back. We want to cooperate and expose the whole truth. I also want to say these words to those who want to blacken our name by saying that we are spies, that we receive support from the Turkish security police (MIT) and that we work together with them - it's not true. Instead of developing lies about people who work with the Zaza-question, it’s better to go to mass media with the documents you have (such a presentation of documents will give pleasure also to us Zazas). Once more I want to put my question: - The people who come with their humiliating spy-theories about us Zazas - How can they get such secret documents from MIT? First they have to show how they have been able to find such documents about us Zazas. Here I don’t want to discuss "who" can obtain such documents. The matter must be left open how one can produce required information from the security police, that’s up to the reader’s own fantasy.

Those who write and are politically active have to be very careful with their statements. Otherwise they will cause needless doubts. Through handing over false information the confidence in that person will disappear. The most important thing is that they not will think that the people are morons that not can think for themselves. Our people haven’t forgotten these people’s hostile behaviour in old times.

We are not incapable of developing new thoughts, politics and a new history for us. On the contrary, with our work we elaborate a new methodology with a new systematic work. With this work we will maintain our people’s identity. With our democratic perspective we will be defenders to world fraternisation. We will not tire of defending and calling out our brotherhood-slogan. We knew what awaited us when we came through with our Zaza people’s identity-wish, and we knew well which obstacles we would come up against regarding our language theory. We knew that what we wrote and expressed would bother and disturb many nationalists (they who think they are humanists and socialists). The national identity of minority people and languages and dialect theories in the Middle East have a dirty state tradition that only serves to exterminate minorities. The Turks, Iranians and Arabs have, for centuries, been saying: -We are not different people. We are a single people. We haven’t got different languages. Kurdish is our dialect. (What irony of fate that the Kurds now say the same thing to the Zaza).

Thanks to our work for our people and for our language we will not become a toy for the Middle East states, nor play in their political games. The game is over. Thanks to us, a new era will begin for the Zaza. That is how it is, my ladies and gentlemen, we have also awoken to the dream of being a people. We have also ascertained that those who write about the Zaza have learned the game from their colonialist rulers, and they have had a good teacher. This they prove through writing and disceiving the mass media with false theories and this they do with great pride. BRAVO...

"The one who knows why one lives, also knows how to live" says Nietzsche. Of todays 6000 different languages there are at most 600 that can be considered to have such vitality that their futures are secured, predicts Michael Kraus, linguist at the University in Fairbanks, Alaska. In the periodical New Scientist (96.01.06) he put out his research about these 600 languages and proves this scientifically. Of these languages, many are spoken by such a limited group of people that they are under threat of extermination. The world’s smallest language, Aoreish, is spoken in the Island State Vanuatu in the Pacific Ocean.

Some languages disappear, but many renew themselves. The renewal is influenced by the achievements in the field of technology and science. The development of technology and science doesn’t just change mankind’s everyday life. Simultaneously it affects and changes mankind’s language; new terminology is created. The new terminology usually becomes international. The European countries wanted for centuries to create a common language. Thanks to the development of technology and science, this ideology has almost succeeded. In todays research, scientists from several countries cooperate and then it´s natural to find common terms. This I personally think is a very wise concentration (but I don´t mean that a language should not defend its origin). E.g. in Zaza we can say "bewnayox" for TV, or "gosdayox" for radio, but these words are so artificial that they will not live long in spoken and written language. Because they can be difficult to pronounce and they can change the words meaning. This is not good for a language. The door of the language has to be kept open for foreign words. There are thousands of examples of foreign words that work in the language in its original shape and only have to change to the language’s grammatical shape. Some words can fit to another language without customs duty. This doesn´t mean that the language is poor, on the contrary this language is rich. For example, in the Swedish language Turkish words still are preserved in their original form: kalabalik, kiosk and dolma. Todays English does not just have hundreds of foreign words, it has thousands from different languages. These words come from Latin, Greek, Gaelic, French, Spanish etc, and have been adopted by the English language. It´s not only a linguistic alteration, but also a change that is reflected in food customs and culture. Mankind is a animal of the flock, and in a modern society communication has enabled us to associate more easily, and then the different languages and cultures begin to influence eath other. Each influence renews the culture and the language. The renewal of the language is like a blood transfusion. This is like blood running through the language's veins; the people are the veins and the language is the blood. The blood in the veins and the language among the people receive vitality. Therefore each human being has to think, write and speak in their own language. People who are educated and conscious of their heritage and culture will never be ashamed of their language.. Those who are ashamed of their language, transfer their shame to their own children and the children grow up with their shame. Children who grow up with this way of thinking in society, lose their roots from the past and thereby a big part of their identity. Obviously this is not the children's fault, the fault is the parents´. The families who have Zaza as a mother tongue and teach their children another language preventtheir children from learning to speak, write or read their mother tongue, and these children lose their connection with their historical roots. In this way a language is erased. When the parents don´t use the language, the children don´t want to use it either, and nor can they learn it. For me that means denying ones roots and language. In other words, it´s disrespectful.

In Europe all languages and dialects (e.g. Sorani and Kurmanji in Sweden) have the right to be taught in school. The families who want their children to learn their mother tongue, receive immigrant language teaching. Even if one of the parents is from Europe, the children have the right to immigrant language teaching, to keep both parts of their identity alive. The parents however often choose the language that is spoken in the country where they live. The reason for this is that there are no Zaza teachers or education in the schools. Here I want to point out another thing: some Zazas that I know who are married to people with other nationalities and have another language as mother tongue, also have other problems. For example one of the Zazas I know is married to a Turkish woman, the second is married to a Zaza woman, and the third is married to a Kurdish woman. In the family where the father is Zaza and the mother is Turkish, the child speaks the respective language with the respective parent. With the Zaza who is married to a Zaza woman, they speak just Zaza. For the Zaza who is married to a Kurdish woman, the matter is a little different. There are conflicts. In that family, only Kurdish is spoken, and the immigrant language teaching is in Kurdish. I can give more examples of such conflicts. E.g. where both parents speak Zaza, but for political reasons choose to send their children to Turkish or Kurdish schools. Where this is the case, it means that one loses contact with one´s mother tongue. The children learn one language entirely, or mix it with all these languages. But what happens to these children? Which identity do these children have? To which nationality do they belong? Obviously it´s not the children who should be answering all these questions. But one shall not forget that in the children it creates a psychological identity crisis. When the children are among other nationalities, they feel themselves that they don´t have a nationality. This is where their "-Who am I?"conflict begins. This conflict makes the children aggressive, violent and hard to get close to. The children, our flowers of the future, the hope of the future and our future generation in this way become totally destroyed. At the root of the children´s bad future is unfortunately ignorant parents.

When I began to write, I took Nietzsche´s words: "The one who knows why one lives, also knows how to live". Maybe you wonder why I wrote this. I wrote down these words to point out an important thing. What will be left after us when we die areour deeds. With deeds, I mean our children and our written documents in our language. Therefore we always have to defend our language to the utmost, and in this way prevent the Zaza language from dying. In our day-to-day speech we use at most 300-500 words and I think that it will not be hard to teach our children these everyday words. Give the children their Zaza roots. Give them their national identity and pride. Ally yourselves with the Zaza language and its dialects. Teach your children to play with Zaza children and create contacts betweeen children. From to today this is the investment you shall make for your children. It’s an investment for the future, and one of the wisest you can make. The words I write can be understand as nationalistic. I don´t myself see it as nationalistic to protect one´s language. Then the world´s countries' language institutions would be nationalistic. Here I would like to quote the philosopher and thinker Bertrand Russell. This quotation is Bertrand Russell´s answer to Woodrow Wyatt´s question.

Wyatt - "Do you think that nationalism is good or bad?"

Russell - "...You have to separate the nationalism in cultural- and political in certain respects. In the cultural way it´s insipidly that the world is so one-coloured...." and then he continues; "- Within literature, art, languages and all culture you can accept nationalism. But if you look on the thing from the political way nationalism is obviously not good. You can´t show one sole thing that can prove that nationalism is good".

One will not find nationalism in our obvious nationalistic identity wishes and the right to use our language. The nationalism can be found in the theories that want to extinguish us, our language and our culture. To deny us Zaza our rights, that's nationalism.

Now we will compare our "dialect" (so that the person who calls our language a dialect can check properly) and other "DIALECTS". We will now look together at the similarities and dissimilarities.

To read, go to: http://zazapress.tripod.com/english/English.html#farukiremet


PS: If you want to be respected by other people and get your national identity known among the world's countries, first of all you have to maintain your national identity.

  • Support -- I wholeheartedly support the creation of a Zazaki wikipedia.

I am a native speaker of Zazaki- Dimilki- Kirmancki language. I wouldnt know and speak any other language (including Kurdish) untill I had to start to Turkish pre school in age of seven. Know I would like to coment about some points have been made here by some of opposed friends.

As one might realise that almost none of them ( the one strongly! opposing for separet Zaza page in Wikipedia) are NATIVE ZAZA SPEAKER.

It is so strange that always our Kurdish brothers / sisters for some strange reason oposing to our language to be developed in to todays standart writen and spoken lamnguages.

I will strongly spport to have a separete ZAZA section in Wikipedia. Bertal Kahraman

I find it unbelievable how you construct from our support for Zazaki INSIDE the Kurdish Wikipedia rather than OUTSIDE that we are opposing to Zazaki "to be developed in to todays standart writen and spoken lamnguages". I hope this is only a severe misunderstanding and not done on purpose. I strongly support the development of Zazaki. It was me who struggled a lot to get people to write articles in Zaza, I asked authors to donate their articles and it was me who thus put almost all of the present Zazaki articles into Wikipedia. Let me again say that all of the Zazaki lobbyists I discussed with failed to write articles. I offered technical help and everything and still am doing so. If you would write articles NOW, in the future there would be nothing more simple that to transfer them into a then-created Zaza-Wikipedia. We offer collaboration, but if you continue to reject, you are free to go your own way. --Erdal Ronahi 13:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support -- I wholeheartedly support the creation of a Zazaki wikipedia. //sibel (N)
  • Support - I strongly support the creation of a Zazaki wikipedia! //yeliz (N) 18:58, 27 January 2006
  • Support -- I support zaza.wikipedia.org melek (N) 19:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I strongly support the creation of a Zazaki wikipedia! //mustafa (N) 22:43, 27 January 2006
  • Support - I support the creation of the Zazaki wikipedia! //yasin (N) 22:58, 27 January 2006

I do not understand how a voting behaviour like this or this should support the idea of a Zazaki Wikipedia. I will never be able to decide if it's is a dialect or a language, thus my opinion is neutral, but my suggestion (as always in Wikipedia) is to write something instead of discussing. Why not trying it at the Kurdish Wikipedia or a test wiki? --Elya 17:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know who the hell did this or this. We should not count them, and this incident should not affect the decision on Zazaki Wikipedia.--Maviulke12 19:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the last 15 votes to support must be anulated, because this suck puppet action; I believed that the Request for new languagues needs a politic for that only the registered users with a minimal quantity of editions may be vote. Any proposal? --Taichi - (あ！) 15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The place of the Zazaish language among the Iranian languages is already determined many years ago from the important linguists. It is definitely a separate language (on a specific grammar, such as in phonology, morphology, lexicology, semantics and syntax) and has several different dialects of it’s own.
Who uneducated one is justified and can decide upon Zazaki, as long as he don’t know this scientific fact?! It seems like that, if somebody would say ‘Dutch is a dialect of German’, because of the similarity of both languages. An other example could be say about the Roman languages (such as Spanish, Portuguese and Italian etc.). Even German dialects like ‘Alemannisch and Plattdüütsch’ have their own status.
Therefore the cooperation or teamwork with the Kurds doesn’t work, because of historical and even nowadays disadvantages in Zazas disfavour. The Kurds just occupy the Zaza culture for political reasons, but this is an unjust act. They don’t really want, that Zazaki develops and spreads.
There are also many bi-ethnical marriages between the Kurds and Zazas. The new Generation of them is more influenced from the Kurdish site, because the Kurds are the majority of the population.
And last but not least, concerning the votes above: ‘Why don’t take anybody into consideration, that these people could be members of a family or friends of each other?’ So why their votes don’t count? --mirzali (N) - 16:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that it is impossible to write in Zazaki on the Kurdish Wikipedia, but obviously none of you even tried to! I think it would be quite logical indeed if you tried writing Zaziki articles on the Kurdish Wikipedia before you said it doesn't work. If you are so eager to write in Zaziki, and you can do it right now, why do'nt you go ahead? And there are enough lexicons that are at least not as clear about its status as a language of its own as you are. Anyway, I grant anyone the right to write in his native language, but this right is currently not denied to you, that's the fact. Breaking up the Kurdish Wikipedia in two Kurdic wikipedias while you can use both languages/dialects/variants - for that's actually what you propose - seems a little counter-productive to me. Only when both sides agree that Turkish Kurdish and Zazaki are uncompatible, I will support a separate Zaziki Wikipedia, for it is a clearly defined linguistical entity and there seem to be quite some enthousiasts for it. Caesarion 22:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr. Caesarion,
Why do you persist in a dialect? Not even exists a standard version of so-called Kurdish, not to mention ‘Kurdic’ languages. Even Sorani (spoken in Iraq) is grammatically different from Kurmanci. There are two other Iranian languages -Gurani and Luri-, these are also reputed to be Kurdish. Which of this separately languages is now Kurdish? Do you know the differences between the mentioned languages? Nevertheless it’s getting politically to give a trial on a common Kurdish nationalism. But this artificial attempt can not to come true.
I have a favour to ask of you, Zazaki is not a milk salad that is made of strained yogurt, cucumber, and garlic. Please, write correctly and not like Zaziki. mirzali 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all: sorry about being so neglecting as to misspell the word "Zazaki". But do I persist in calling it a dialect? I'm not quite aware of that. On the contrary, I leave all possibilities open by explicitly saying "languages/dialects/variants". That there is no standard Kurdish language does not yet mean that there is no such thing as a Kurdish language - there isn't a Standard Limburgic Language either, at least not one that is accepted anywhere. Yet there is one Limburgic language. I don't really know whether you should denote these variants (yes: variants) as dialects or seperate language - the definition for "language" is all but fixed, as you know, but I do know the ku: Wikipedia allows them all. Caesarion 08:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • support - I'm a Greek and a friend of a Zaza-family for years in Berlin. I know the cultural differences between the Turks, Kurds and Zazas very well.


Turkey is a huge country; e.g. it is three times larger than Germany. There are several regions with varying cultures and different languages. I mean, Turkey is a multiracial country. Although the ethnic people have partly common similararities, but the languages are enormous differntly from each other, so much that they compatible together. So long as the Kurds degrade the Zazaish language as a dialect, nobody of the Zazas would write into the Kurdish-wikipedia. I looked at ku.-wikipedia under Zazaki category and there are only some biographies about a few authors, they have primary Kurdish as mother tongue. And these mentioned texts are just copied fron an other internet site. vardis 15:25, 6 February 2006

  • support - I support the Zazaki-Wikipedia! baboali 20:14, 10 February 2006


  • Strong Opposee! - The Zazas are a part of the kurdish culture and have the same root with the kurds. The most Zazas see themselves as kurds! Zazas and the kurds are the same people, only the language is different. But in the Kurdish-Wikipedia are categories for every dialect, who everybody write in its own dialect. The People, that will a seperate wikipedia for Zazaki, are not interested in writing of Zazaki-Articles. They only will split the kurdish people! --83.164.10.225 18:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - Zaza is a kurdish Dialect--84.61.72.159 18:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose strongly oppose. Zazas are Kurds. The greatest rebellions of kurds were from zazas. 1920 Sheikh Saed, 1925 Qochgiri and 1938 Dersim. The survivor of Dersim rebellion was Nuri Dersimi and he wrote 2 books about alavi Kurds and he wrote also that zazas are kurds and 80.000 Humans fought for liberty of Kurdistan and died. --Skywalker us 00:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Seyit Riza and other Zazaki- speaking kurdish heros have shown us in the history which zazas are and which their native country is.

They are definitely KURDS!--84.113.55.73 14:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Zazas are Kurds.--213.39.208.241 15:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support! Zazaki is not Kurdish!
You slave of the turkish imperialism, why you delete the oppose-posts, you child. Seyid Riza and other 100.000 zazaish-speaking Kurds are dead for a KURDISTAN!!!


"STRONG OPPOSE" ZAZAKI IS JUST A DIALECT OF THE KURDISH LANGUAGE (just like kurmanci, gorani and sorani)--84.152.107.53 11:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)S. Arslan from Munich[reply]


oppose f**k you bitches, f**k you turks I speak Zaza , i'm Kurd, i'm Kurdistan --83.76.91.150 12:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)viva la Kurdistan forever--83.76.91.150 12:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OPPOSE OPPOSE OPPOSE !!!!!!--!!!!!--84.152.107.53 15:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OPPOSE What ist dis Zaza is Kurdisch, Iam Zaza speaking iam Kurd okey Kurdisch. 84.130.228.77

Oppose - Zaza is kurdish!! And will always remain Kurdish!!!!Servan--84.132.242.239 15:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Most of the "Zazakî" speakers declare "Zazaish" as a Kurdish language. Many of the intellectual Zaza-Kurds have written texts about the Zazas and in their opinoin IS "Zazakî" a kurdish language (e.g. Mûnzûr Chem) and their works were not posted (i think because they are written in Turkish).

At the time of the kurdish rebellions Seyîd Riza, the last (zaza) kurdish leader, writ a letter to the world community. He hoped for help and called the Zazaish people "Kurds" like the other kurdish groups. Many movements started then, to split the kurdish nation on the rat of the enemys of a stable kurdish alliance. It is a diffamation to say that the old kurdish Intellectuals and leaders did'nt know that they were'nt a part of the kurdish people and THAT were the reason of they called themselfs "Kurds". The kurdish "Zazas" know, that their language is other than for example Kurmanji, but the kurdish language in whole is very rich. It is not an argument to say: The "Zaza" are an elsewire nation, they have another language: 1.) That's not correct 2.) The Word "Ethnic Unity" describes a oneness of people, on the basis of the Culture, Origin OR language. Those are 3 things on which this is based. And on that account the "Zaza" Kurds cannot be departed from, because the 3 preconditions to BE a nation are fulfilled, in other words: Other kurdish Groups are on par with them. So there are many REAL EXISTING nations, which fulfill these precondicions as much as Kurds.



Since now there was not a Zazaic nationalism, only a kurdish, why? Let's argue, what is the precondition to be a nation:

1.) I think first of all to have a "belong together" feeling

2.) Second to have the same Culture and Lifestyle



To cause a Zazaic nationalism thereby, insomuch the Zaza language is another language, is in my position a new kind of splitting the kurdish nation and weakening their chances for a life in freedom. In addition of this i think, it is a "Cultural-discrimination", such kind of "Lingualism", as the majority of the Zaza speakers see themselfs as kurds. The result of Genetic analyses (the links were posted in the "Zaza" article) of the Zaza speaker Kurds showed us, that there are'nt differeces between this groups. And NO, this is NOT a matter for me to say: Zazas are Kurds! but a related perception like to say "Zazas are'nt Kurds because their language is diffrent". Who says that kurdish must be the one speechsector "Bahdinanî" or "Kurmanjî"? It could be so, but i have not read even one scientific resource to clear that. Even if that's a fact. "Zazas" are a Part of the Kurds is a fact, too (because of the fulfilled preconditions to be a ethnic grop as i wrote).

--Under the name "Kurdî" tere are 3 different Languages, which are seperated. A new Zazakî box is written by a Zaza Kurd, and this makes me happy. I can't see anything like "favored" dialects. The same for all.--

Upshot: The divulgers of the "Zazaistan" nationalism want to assimilate a big part of the Zazakî speakers and a slotted Wikipedia would be only the beginning! This will angry most of the Zazas like me! To split the kurdish wikipedia would make "Wikipedia" a political "Toy" for the propaganda of the Zazaistanian people! But IF you decide to split it in two (or three of four...), then (to prevent this) there must be a visible mark, which shows, that "Zazakî" IS a kurdish language or AT LEAST, that "Zaza speakers" are a piece of the Kurds. There is still a lot to say about, but i think this is enough.

Bye.--80.171.6.52 18:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I share the opinion of Erdal Ronahî. We (I am also a zazaish kurd) define us as Kurds. --85.181.67.17 19:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It's curious to see that about 15 TURKISH Wikipedians had voted FOR a Zazaish Wikipedia (atakan 2 times. From 17:50 o'clock to 22:58, they've added their support-votes. On the same day. But why? 

   * Oppose - I oppose Zazaki-Wikipedia! //Ceren 17:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

   * Oppose- I oppose Zazaki-Wikipedia! //Cavana 18:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

   * Oppose - I oppose Zazaki-Wikipedia //Nebahat (N) 19:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

   * Oppose - I oppose zaza-wikipedia. //umut (N) 18:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

   * Oppose -- I strongly oppose the creation of a Zazaki wikipedia. //sibel (N)

   * Oppose - I oppose Zazaki-Wikipedia! //esra (N) 18:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

   * Support - I strongly support the creation of a Zazaki wikipedia! //yeliz (N) 18:58, 27 January 2006

   * Support -- I support zaza.wikipedia.org melek (N) 19:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

   * Oppose - I oppose zaza.wikipedia //atakan (N) 19:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

   * Oppose - I oppose zaza-wikipedia //mesut (N) 22:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

   * Oppose - I oppose Zazaki-Wikipedia //arzu (N) 22:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

   * Strong oppose - I strongly oppsoe the creation of a Zazaki wikipedia! //mustafa (N) 22:43, 27 January 2006

   * Oppose - I strongly oppose the creation of the Zazaki wikipedia! //yasin (N) 22:58, 27 January 2006

   * support - I support the Zazaki-wikipedia! Atakan (N) 12:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

   * support - I support the Zazaki-Wikipedia! baboali 20:14, 10 February 2006

--Ciwan 13:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blame strongly this savage behaviour! As you see, how rude and rough our Kurdish „friends“ are fundamentally. That was bound to happen. I can’t help laughing about this. They always must have the latest word. This is the important reason, why the cooperation with them don’t work. Strictly speaking they know generally, that Zazaki is a different language. But it is all about Kurdish nationalism! Their dream is a grand Kurdistan. Therefore they claim the Zazaish history and culture. They also add the Gorans and Lurs to the Kurds. Be that as it may the Kurmanjs and Sorans build together a Kurdish nationalism, but the Zazas, Gorans and Lurs should definitely not add to the so-called Kurds. This artificial attempt will never come true, because it is an unjust act against this ethnic groups. The mentioned ethnics have separately their own cultures, languages and dialects.mirzali 11:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indifferent - Could you guys please stop (supporters and opposers)? The question how Zazaki and Kurdish are related is completely irrelevant to whether there should be a Zazaki Wikipedia. Check the present list of Wikipedias and there are lots of Wikipedias in languages which are considered dialects of other languages. IT DOES NOT MATTER. The question to be answered here is: Will there be enough contributions to found an active and working Wikipedia in Zazaki. A good way to convince people this is true will be behaving like responsible adults. --Mkill 20:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I am Zaza Speaking. and i feel me kurdish. I Born Kurdish I Die Kurdish

Biji Kurdistan.

Coptic language (1 support)

Template:New-language-template

Present Belarusian (1 support, 1 oppose)

People interested [if native speaker, please mark (N)]: trasianka editor

  • Proposer's user account in Meta and other wikis: Sidorsky (N)
  • User accounts of others who are willing to work on the proposed wiki: Semashko (N)

trasianka editor

Language code (ISO 639): bel

Proposed ___domain: bel.wikipedia.org

Relevant infos:

  • Link to article(s) on the language in an existing Wikipedia: en:Belarusian_language; ru:Белорусский язык
  • Native name(s): Сучасная беларуская мова (Present Belarusian)
  • Approximate number of speakers: 8 million (at least)
  • Location(s) spoken: Official language of the Republic of Belarus
  • Closely related languages, if any: Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Slovak, Czech, Bulgarian
  • External links to organizations that promote the language:

Link to request on a mailing list:

Comments.

Present-day Belarusian, the official language of the Republic of Belarus is significantly different from that archaic form of language that is used by administrators of Belarusian Wikipedia. These distinctions concern the basic sections of philology: orphoepics, graphemics, spelling, grammar, morphology, lexicology and others. The Grammar of the archaic (or classic, as they say) Belarusian is developed in 1920s in Northwest areas of Belarus (now it is the Republic of Lithuania) and is based on regional phonetic, grammatic and lexic features of character. However it considerably differs now from the language which is used by the slavic population of that region. Thus, this variant of the Belarus language is not a dialect. Since it is poorly unified we may compare it more likely to a slang, than to a modern national language. It stopped its development due to cession of Vilnius region and WWII emmigration.

The roots of the Present Belarusian literary language are in the most populated Central Belarus. It is a state language of Belarus, a language of official documents, sciences, education, culture, media. The language used in Belarusian Wikipedia today is a language of amateurs of olden time, and their work is a form of escapism. This prevent educated men and women of Belarus from participation in Wikipedia. We ask you to support the creation of Present Belarusian Wikipedia.

  • SUPPORT - I support Present Belarusian Wikipedia user:Semashko (N) 11:39, 09 February 2006
  • Oppose - there is currently a request for a Trasianka Wikipedia; see elswhere on this page. Disputes about how to write Belarusian should be solved on the be: Wikipedia, not by splitting up a Wikipedia. It's essentially the same language we're talking about, and you and the be:-administrators should be a little more cooperative and tolerant towards each other's concept of what written Belarusian should be like. Caesarion 11:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Caesarion, can you say that Old English and English is essentially the same? In my opinion Belarusian ("Present Belarusian") and a complex of regional dialects plus strong Polish influence ("Belarusian") are different. You are right as for "Trasianka" - it's not the separate language. The relation between these three forms is the following: be.-Belarusian (archaic Northwestern dialects + Polish + US English americanisms) - Present Belarusian (the official language of Belarus) - Trasianka (Belarusian + Russian). If you think it's normal situation when Belarusian wiki is written not in Belarusian, so perhaps you can propose how to find a place for the real Belarusian language in Wikipedia? It's not so easy as splitting up a Wikipedia for hardly existing Germanic dialects but could you try, please? - Ivan Sidorsky 09:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know about the details of this situation, but a comparision with Modern English and Old English is certainly absurd. By the way, the English article about Belarusian already boasts a strong influence of Polish, and this article was edited several times by some of the most prominent be: users, including Rydel, just to name one. What they most likely do is keeping Russian influences out, but are they really reconstructing a language that was spoken some 1,200 years ago, as Old English was? Compare, for example, "Þā Geānlǣhtan Rīcu American is land in þǣm American. Sceortlīce wrīteþ man USA, and þis land hæfþ 297 millionen lēoda" and "The United States of America is a country in America. In short, it is written USA, and this country has 297 inhabitants." Are present day spoken Belarusian and Belarusian the way it is written really as dissimilar as old and modern English? I bet not. (Btw tell me why some German regional languages "hardly exit", according to you). Caesarion 12:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What Wikipedia is being constructed for: languages, nations or cultures? If first, we have more strong position than those who promote dead language for cultural-ideological reasons. After all, I highly appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and it's a sad surprise for me, that you've decided to help people pursuing other aims. - Ivan Sidorsky 09:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not particularly helping people who promote archaic, maybe unnatural forms of a language. As I said before, I am in favour of a more cooperative solution. Maybe the be: community should be more tolerant towards a form of Belarusian that is closer to the living, spoken language. If necessary, contact the Board of Trustees and make them resolve this dispute. They are very, very unlikely to allow two separate wikipedias in the same language. Moreover, it is a fact that they usually favour an official, standardised form of a language. You should absolutely try to come to terms with the be: community before you jump into steps like these. Caesarion 16:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT I strongly support this project and willing to help if I could. Sorry, now I see it is not likely the way of solving the problem. Nevertheless, the problem of intolerance and radicality of be: administrators still exists, and we'd like you to tell us what can we do, where to write. trasianka editor 18:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, if somebody could tell, what would you recommend to do, where to write in such case, it would be reasonable to close the discussion here, because it makes no more sense now, after you've told, that it is not the way of solving such problems. Where is Board of Trustees, how could it look, i mean what to write? trasianka editor 00:57, 07 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not able to answear you that question, but if you wan't make a deal with actual be-wiki admins I can support your effort to help large amounts of educated present Belarusan language speakers to contribute to Wikipedia. D_T_G 20:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliano

Template:New-language-template

The decision to propose the birth of Emilian Wikipedia derives from the discussion regarding Piacentino dialect; the necessity to put together the different varieties of Emilian dialect, including a template for each variety in each article, is justified from the reason to support an integration of the different varieties in only one regional dialect, giving the possibility to each person that knows just a variety, to contribute to the writing of the articles. The propose to use (ISO639-1) em.wikipedia.org derives from the reason that (en) is already used by English Wikipedia, but (em) seems to be a free code until now. Ingc 2:12, 9 Mar 2005 (CET)


Brněnský hantec (1 support)

It is a specific version of the Czech language or a very special dialect of it which is spoken mainly in the city of Brno (the biggest Moravian city) and generally not comprehensible to people not born in Brno. It has very interesting history and is based on German. I think that the Wikipedia in Brněnský hantec would be a graeat idea. Many citizens of Brno would be happy to have it. (And, as there is already Wikipedia project in Allemanic, I see no reason why not to allow this.--Tintin 18:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I support the idea as well and I would definitely contribute to it. FerdinandH 19:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tintin - are you a Moravian? Can you tell me if you have heard about Hanacky janzyk? And about Brnensky hantec -> how many native speakers? Czech dialects are interesting, I have already heard lacky from neighbourhood of Moravia-Silesia - so from my neighbourhood, Cieszyn Silesian (a Pole, but feeling a child of culture of three nations including Czech :), D T G 22:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I have heard about it. Hanácký jazyk (or hanáčtina) is spoken mainly in the neighbourhood of Olomouc and Prostějov (Central Moravia, we may say). Yes, I am native Moravian but currently I live in Straßburg. How many native speakers of Brněnský hantec? All habitants of Brno to some degree (approximately 500,000). Needless to say, that elder people command this language much better than the youth. (Another reason why to start Wikipedia in Brněnský hantec!) --Tintin 05:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tintin, can you give me some links to get know better Hanacky and Brnensky? I'll try to inform one Moravian I know from cs-wiki about this (yet) uninformal proposal :) Zdravim, D T G 09:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try to browse this on-line dictionary. No explanation, but gives a clue how much the languages differ. --slady 11:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I am a Prague citizen not Brno and I know only a few words in hantec. Though, I'd like to point out some facts. The language has no code defined in ISO 639-1. The language has no oficial standard and I'm not sure whether there is some unofficial. I think there would be disputes among Brno citizens about what is the correct form. Moreover, the city has only about 370 thousand citizens, not all of them having Internet access and by far not all of them speaking hantec. Is it enough to build a quality Wikipedia? Establishing a new Wikipedia for hantec would only drain potential editors from Czech Wikipedia. That's not good. On the other hand, hantec Wictionary would be lovely! --Egg 12:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hantec is, very roughly, Czech equivalent to en:Cockney and even more pointless to found its own Wikipedia than thet would be. --Maly ctenar 15:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is an excellent idea. I SUPPORT THIS.--85.160.26.36 19:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am from Brno and I do support Wikipedia in Hantec. It is a nice idea and a good way of spreading our language.

Punjabi Shahmukhi

Template:New-language-template

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

Question

First, sorry if I'm posting this wrong or doing something else wrong; I'm new here. Second, would any of the following "artificial" languages be possible (Note that Google has most of them aas options to view google in)

  • Pig Latin
  • Elmer Fudd
  • Bork, Bork, Bork
  • Other English dialects, for example Jive and Sweedish Chef
  1. Pig Latin see: Requests for new languages/Non-natural, D_T_G 19:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages&oldid=304971"