Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Coptic

Coptic Wikipedia

See also second request (rejected).

See also third request (verified as eligible).

submitted	verification	final decision

	This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process. This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy. The closing committee member provided the following comment: This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 06:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal summary
Language details: Coptic (Rem En Kimi, cop ISO 639-3) Editing community: Agari (P) List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your name if you are a native speaker of this language. Relevant pages: — External links: —
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

Related languages: Ancient Egyptian, Demotic
Number of speakers: Unknown, official with Coptic Orthodox and Catholic Churches.
Locations spoken: Egypt, ca. 200-1600
There are 2major forms of Coptic, Bohairic and Sahidic. Bohairic is used for liturgy among the Coptic churches and Sahidic is used for biblical texts.
Resources: http://www.geocities.com/remenkimi/ http://www.geocities.com/ambroseboles/coptic_language/coptic_language.htm

Support - Belgian man (nl na en) 20:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Caesarion 23:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC) - the language is both classical and in a process of revival. These are the two conditions under which I may support a wiki in a dead language. Coptic fulfils both, so why not?[reply]
Oppose - not really a living language spoken by native speakers. Would be a geek-Wiki. Kenwilliams 19:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lanternix 10:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's spoken by some hundreds of real people again after revival started in 1970s
- Ken, you don't know what you're talking about. While the Latin wiki may be somewhat geekish, for people who speak Coptic their language is generally not a trivial hobby but quite a serious matter as the language is considered sacred among Egyptian Christians. Caesarion 09:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for knowing what I know and telling me. You are my new hero! I know exactly, what I'm talking about. You should read something about this dead language without real native speakers. It's a religous Language and actually only "spoken" (only in a broken way!) by some less egypt christians. This languagy only "exists" because they don't want to speak arabian language. As historian I only can say, this request is a bad joke - and to support a dead language is support an dead wiki in future and also support the end of the Wikipedia at all. There are actually so much dead Wikis - and they all block the servers. Do we have not enough problems, do we much more? And at the end it would be nice it you don't would tell me, what I have to think or to do! Kenwilliams 17:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "as a historian you know..." Ken, we're discussing a language, historians treat histories, not languages. "To support a dead language is to support a dead wiki". Clearly, the Latin Wikipedia has thousands of articles but it's dead? Of course Ken. "And also to support the end of Wikipedia at all". Don't talk nonsense. Let's stop creating new wikis at all. If the wiki stays small, it doesn't hurt the server at all. If the wiki grows large, clearly it serves a community. And that's what we do it actually for, right? If you take the fact that the server would be burdened too heavily, well, let's close down en: immediately, for the extreme amount of edits on it is the only major burden the server experiences! Caesarion 15:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I myself am a Coptic speaker, and I can assure you it's not a dead language. There're about a thousand speakers of Coptic worldwide and many more Copts are increasingly eager to learn the language of their ancestors. I believe a Coptic Wiki would be a great resource for all of us. Lanternix 10:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nl:Boudewijn Idema, 13:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - bertodsera Maybe this time technology will help into saving a grwat historical language, instead of always helping to kill them. My best wishes for all of you guys, I also do think that wikipedia can really help, especially if you work on sections for children. 19:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hope a Coptic wikipedia can help with the revival of this unique and ancient language. Just one request: Could someone write the name of the language in the Coptic script in the relevant info section above, so it can be used for interwiki links? --Chamdarae 17:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Off course I like this language a lot, but can't speak it... Servien 18:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taichi - (あ！) 07:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- the opposer doesn't seem to have noticed the revival. --Node ue 07:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm usually not so much in favor of Wikipedias for ancient languages but Coptic, like Latin, is not really a "dead language" and therefore probably a promsing project. Arbeo 15:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ilario 09:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this request from the approved page, because it doesn't meet normal criteria. There are no native speakers. Tuf-Kat 14:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved it back. There are native speakers. The Coptic language has an enthusiastic and very successful revival movement in Egypt since the middle of the 20th century with native speakers. --Node ue 15:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What Tuf-Kat obviously means is that there are no native speakers supporting having a wikipedia, NOT that there are no native speakers full stop. The proposer is not a speaker, and no native or non-native speakers have signed up to work on it yet (although one speaker, possibly a native speaker, supports it). It doesn't meet normal criteria. --Chamdarae 02:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Lanternix says that is a native user.--Taichi - (あ！) 02:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was clearly referring to the lack of native speakers in support. And Lanternix does not say that he is a native speaker, at least not on this page, and even if he was, that would still not meet the de facto criteria. Tuf-Kat 23:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Tuf-Kat here. It's too early to approve this Wikipedia. The fact that native speakers exist does not automatically imply that anyone of them is willing/able to write for Wikipedia (cf. editions for Zulu, Marshallese ect. that have existed for years). Even if in this specific case it might possibly be a little harder to find any native speakers in a strict sense of the word, I believe there should be at least two users with a high level of proficiency committed to writing content before we'll create this wiki (as of now there are zero). Arbeo 13:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given more than a week with no opposing arguments, I have re-moved it back to the main page. If someone disagrees, please discuss before reverting again. Tuf-Kat 03:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Absar 17:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gidonb 06:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kurdbuddha (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Im a native speeker of the coptic language im a coptic egyptian and there are few hundereds if not thousands of poeple who are fluent like me i do support this language and willing to participate
Support Tehenu 07:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - Hello, I don't agree with the decision to reject a Coptic wikipedia. First coptic languages is spoken by few people, and above all we do have a wikipedia in Latin, a dead language so why not in Coptic ? The "dead language" argument is not an argument, or maybe the Latin wikipedia should be deleted.--Tehenu (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]