Requests for new languages/Wikibooks Limburgish

From Meta

Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Limburgish Wikibooks

←main page Requests for new languages (Wikibooks Limburgish)
Discussion verification final decision
This language has been verified as eligible.
Although the language is eligible for a project, the community still needs to meet some requirements described in the language proposal policy. In the meantime, you can discuss the creation of this language project on this page. (See an unofficial analysis of this request.)

Contents
Proposal summary
Language details:
Limburgish (limburgs, lèmburgs, plat, li ISO-639 1)
Users interested in forming an editing community:
Add N beside users that are native speakers, and P beside the original proposers' names.
Relevant pages:
External links:
Please read Meta:Language proposal policy for help using this template correctly.

Please also take a look at Requests for new languages/Wikinews Limburgish, thank you!

[edit] Statistics

  • There are 21 pages, 5 books and 3 interested users.
  • To do:
    • Interface: all messages are translated for the Limburgish Wikiquote which has been created around the month ago.
    • More interested users: I'm currently doing some advertising in and around Montfort and Roermond, so I think I'm able to find some users.
    • More pages: When more interested users come, more articles will come.
    • Keep a nice balance between books/pages. Now we've got 4 pages per book, that's a little bit on the low side, so we need to change it.
    • Each month a new book of the month. For January is it Limburgs veur Oetstenjers.
  • Last updated on 18:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC) by OosWesThoesBes.

[edit] Arguments in favour

  • This is the first online open-content textbook collection in Limburgish ever. JohnVansdal 14:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Good idea, I think it will flow. --Ooswesthoesbes 13:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: there is no Wikibooks yet. So it could get active. Benopat 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support: I created the project, but I think more activity would be usefull. SF-Language 16:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    It is active on this moment, do I see no problem in the creating of the Wikibooks. Bergman 07:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • support: Per Jon van 't Doal. There shall be activity if I go editing, which I surely do. VanLankvelt 14:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • support: There are less books in Limburgish. Many people go look on the Wikibooks to see for those books. This would be a great oppertunity for Limburgish people to start a Wikibooks. I can think many people would be interested in having such a project because many people have need of a Wikibooks since there are less books in Limburgish. I will go editing too. --Bergman 18:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments against

  • Oppose. There is a Dutch Wikibooks. JHaeneberghen 08:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    I see you have already found this request too. We can't work with the Dutch Wikibooks, because they don't except us there. Please give 1 valid reason why we shouldn't create this project? Limburgish is a dialect is no valid reason, it has an ISO-639-1-code. I know you speak Limburgish yourself, so why do you constantly oppose our requests? --OosWesThoesBes 08:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    They are not enough people who speak Limburgish to keep that project alive. Happy New Year, btw! JHaeneberghen 09:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppoose I don't believe Limburgish is a langauge. Although it does differ quite a bit from Dutch, it is only a dialect. Also, as said above, I don't believe it would last very long. There is already a Dutch one, I believe that is how it should stay. We can't have all of these dialects as languages. (Red4tribe 04:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC))
    And who are you to judge whether Limburgish is a dialect or a language? Limburgish in everyday life is unpure. Real Limburgish, you would probably not understand even if you're Dutch. It has an ISO-639-1-code, yes 1, so you could consider it to be a seperate language. Sometimes, the difference between German and Dutch are smaller, compare: Goed - Gut - Good. There are of course also people who say Dutch is a German dialect, but that's nonsense too. En esse den nag dinks det 't Plat gein taal is, raaj ich dich strang ane óm 'ns get taalkóndig beukskes te gaon laeze, sinse dae nag get van op kans staeke. --OosWesThoesBes 04:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I happen to be a Dutchman and I have very little trouble understanding someone from Maastricht and I'm from Alkmaar, I believe it is a dialect. That does not make it a fact but there is not a big enough of a difference for me to say this is a language. Dutch and German are not mutually intelligible such as Limburgish and standard Dutch are. (Red4tribe 18:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

You know, the problem is Mestreechs is not pure Limburgish. In daily speech, real Limburgish words are often replaced with Dutch words. As you already seem to say, this is more an opinion than a real argument. Unfortunately for you, the fact we've got an ISO-639-1 code will tell enough to prove it's a language with many dialects rather than a dialect with many dialects. --OosWesThoesBes 05:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course what I say really doesn't mean that much. It's just my opinion. I apologize if I came on the wrong way but I have never seen Limburgish as anything other than a distinct dialect. (Red4tribe 05:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for apologizing. I guess you're not a native speaker. Limburgish starts to become more Dutch day by day. I think these projects could help saving the Nederlandification of Limburgish. Though I agree a Wikiversity might be a little bit too much. Projects such as the Wikisource show beautiful results. --OosWesThoesBes 11:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't disagree with you there. All of the dialects are slowly dying out. Much of the younger population just speaks standard Dutch now. I personally have never been a fan of dialects, as I'm sure you can see. Anyways I do speak dutch. (Red4tribe 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

  • Red4tribe: "I don't believe it would last very long. " <-- This can be measured by the level of participation. It is evident that the special project committee for languages will consider its merit carefully. As for the language/dialect/anything-in-between issue is concerned, we already have a simple effective test: the existence of an ISO code. Hillgentleman 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The experience of the Limburgish wiktionary is not exactly very encouraging. It is mostly a collection on bot-generated trash and OosWesThoesBes is the main culprit of that. Now he wants to generate more collections of trash? Not only here but even in Zeeuws... This is not good for the wiki-family

Jcwf 02:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, the problem is I don't know how I should add bot-created "trash" to a wikibooks. For a Wiktionary it's quite simple, for Wikipedia too, but the other projects need to survive without bots. And what do you mean with Not only here but even in Zeeuws... ? --OosWesThoesBes 05:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Localisation update

  • Currently 99.74% of the MediaWiki messages and 99.08% of the messages of the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been localised. Please help us help your language by localising at Betawiki. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks, GerardM 07:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikibooks_Limburgish"
Personal tools