Jump to content

Requests for new languages

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by 67.150.244.171 (talk) at 22:41, 20 November 2006 (→‎Wiktionary in Chilean Spanish). It may differ significantly from the current version.
Note: In the very near future this page, among others, may be integrated into the process at Wikimedia Incubator. You may wish to withhold suggestions until the interchange is complete.

A copy of this page is in Incubator:Proposals for new 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.

Projects

Information

Subpages

See also the subpages:

  • Support
    • No supporters (Luba-Katanga, South Ndebele, North Ndebele, Ojibwe, Tigre, Inari Sami, Skolt Sami, Indian English, Kokborok, Porjidlo);
    • One supporter (Hindustani, Unserdeutsch, Mayan, Mikasuki, Real Dutch, Palauan, Haida, Azeri with other alphabets, Silbo Gomero, Fala&Extremaduran, American English, Bahasa Riau, Filipino, Rotas)
    • Need support from native speakers

Procedure

There are several steps to follow if you would like to create a new language Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, or Wikiversity. 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 end of the discussion ongoing section.
  4. Find the ISO 639-2 code or propose a code for your language (for future compatibility, be sure to consult the ISO 639-3 draft, which covers many or most of the world's languages). If scripts would need to be coded see: en:ISO 15924
  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). 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 and Novial. 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

Template:New-language-template

Discussion ongoing

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

Palatinate German Wikipedia

See the second request (approved).
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 02:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  1. Support I am a native pfälzisch speaker and I support a pfälzisch Wikipedia. Many things, at least the history of this area are worth to be described in the pfälzisch language. --Gsh de 21:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - SaorhGumpaetx 15:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support--Conceyeiru 19:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) I think they can devolope its own wiki[reply]
  4. Support--Llionés 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC) I lived for years in this German region and learned to love its dialect or language, which you don't understand if you only speak upper German.[reply]
    Support--Fratele lui Bonaparte, il cunosti? 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Indefinitely blocked user —Pill δ 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Belgian man (nl na en) 13:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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]
  7. Support Come on. There is a Ripuarian Wikipedia, so why not a Palation one??? --Abzt 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 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]
  9. SUPPORT well, it's the same old story and dance... if we use such a deletionist criteria, then NO language is needed, apart from US English. Who on earth is going to use a computer without knowing at least basic English? So why on earth would you need a German wiki at all? Still you have it, and it made a wonderful edition, too. I think these guys have the right to speak and write as they wish (no matter whether you call this a language, a dialect, or just a mispronounciation). If they can make a good wiki, then why not? And since it's so easy for Germans to read and speak in Pfälzisch (it's just a different sound, isn't it? ;) then de.wiki will have no problems in importing any interesting content from it. That's if we have to be logical (which is the very least you'd expect from people writing an encyclopedia). --Bertodsera 10:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 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]
  11. Support.--Harvzsf 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --Melancholie 04:22, 11 February 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)
  13. Support Ciosek 20:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC) I see more logical arguments for support than to negate. Arguments for opose are quite illogical and some discriminatory - show NPOV love to standardization. w:Germanic substrate hypothesis[reply]
  14. Support A language, not a dialect. nl:Boudewijn Idema , 13:52 , 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    Title actualized once again --de:Benutzer:SPS 22:20, 10 April 2006 (CEST)
  15. Support Like someone said, Ripuarian is a dialect of German, and we have that. 22:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    Just a remark: I'm not veryknowledgeable about the Riparian, but I would say there are hundreds of them Riparian dialects, ranging from 'almost' Dutch of Heinsberg to 'almoist' Luxemburgian in the Eifel tops to 'almost' Palatinean somehere bwtween Koblenz/Mayen to indistinguishable from Limburgsian around Venlo to something very Plattdüütsch-like along a line from north of Oberhausen - Düsseldorf - Gummersbach - Siegen. All the mentioned 'Neighbors' but the Palatinians have their own Wikipedias, all are flourishing, and so is the Riparian. Good for Palatinian, I think, they will do well, too. 88.76.192.202
  16. Support de:Benutzer:Elvis untot 14:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support I would like to answer to some of the arguments used by the opponents of the proposal: Indeed, Pfälzisch is just a dialect but that is true for Alemannisch, Ripuarisch, Limburgisch and many other Wikipedias. If you read a text in Pfälzisch and know High German, you will surely be able to see a large difference, maybe more than between Czech and Slovakian, Croatian and Serbian, Danish and Norwegian, which are considered separate languages just for political reasons. Also, dialect does not simply mean a mispronunciation or a variation in pronunciation, for German linguists Dialekt means there is a different grammar and some different idioms (in Palatinian there are some taken from French and Yiddish), while a Mundart is more a regional pronunciation of the standard language. Examples for a Mundart are Sächsisch or Hessisch but I would not vote against a Wikipedia in Sächsisch, Hessisch, Fränkisch etc, as there are still enough people to work on the Standard German version, maybe even more because who can write good articles in a dialect will probably be able to do so in Standard German. There are theoretically be hundreds of thousands of people who speak Palatinian actively, are able to use a computer and to write articles, although the language is rarely to hear in towns like Heidelberg because it is considered as a sign for poor education and little knowledge by people who did not learn it in their youth. This process could be turned if a Wikipedia in Palatinian could motivate more people to write in what is actually their mother tongue. In rural areas in the west of the Palatine it is used in shops, offices, schools, restaurants and theatres and Standard German is somehow considered to be foreign and unusual, although all official documents are in Standard German because Palatinian is not considered a minority language like Plattdüütsch or Alsatian in France. If you ever heard German high-ranking politicians like Kurt Beck or Helmut Kohl speak on local event in the home area, you would quickly forget the idea that Pfälzisch is just a variation of High German. There should not be too many problems with orthography, as everybody could write in the dialect of his hometown, all of them are understandable (there is no need to have one Wikipedia in the dialect of Ludwigshafen and another one in that of Kaiserslautern, Mannheim, Heidelberg and so on - as little as there is a need to have several Wikipedias in the dialects of Leipzig, Dresden or Chemnitz;-)), as there is no standard orthography of written Palatinian no form can be considered wrong as long is someone speaks it and writes in it; the main thing is people write in the language they (or at least their parents and grand-parents) speak, which is classical and pure Palatinian. A Wikipedia in a dialect or a local language naturally never has a high scientific level, people write more about regional or every-day topics, articles on elaborate and more complicate topics are mostly direct translations but they never form the main part of the encyclopedia. By the way: There are versions in Manx and Cornish, which are actually extinct languages, Latin, which is not used by anybody as a mother tongue for centuries and even Gothic, in which just a few words are still known to us. As long as some people are interested in writing articles and know the dialect good enough to do so, there are no reasons against setting up a new Wikipedia. de:Benutzer:stefanbw 01:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    Well said. From experience, I agree, discussing orthography/spelling is futile. This has implications:
    You may need quite many redirects for spelling variants. There is a tool under development that can make bulk submissions easy.
    You'll have to have a way to decide which spelling is going to be an article name. Pragmatic approach: keep the 1st writer's choice. Chances are, that creates an even distribution and no-one feels set back.
    You may need to (or want to) keep text consistent, at least at times. That needs contributors with awareness and knowledge.
    Category names are more problematic than article names, since their spelling has to be remembered by writers, who don't want to engage in time consuming look-ups all the time. There is a tool under development for navigating the category tree and select some for insertion.
    If there is demand, and/or there are suficiently different orthograpies, you may want, or even need to have, variant spellings of the language user interface. If present, these can be selected in the user preferences. Serbian and Chinese have that already. The group of Ripuarian languages will, too.
    Good luck! --Purodha Blissenbach 01:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support -- de:Benutzer:Mundartpoet 21:55, 6 Aug 2006 (CEST)
  19. Support. A very unique dialect of German--my great-grandmother spoke it. en:User:Caponer --Caponer 21:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. SupportI can't believe some of you actually oppose this.Cameron Nedland 00:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I lived years in that German region and learned to love Pfälzisch.--Llionés 16:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support -- Tobias Conradi 01:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Sroulik 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I refer to Purodha's insightful comments. --Lumijaguaari 07:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. We have many actuve wikipedias in German dialects. The argument that such wikipedias are not needed 'cause dialect speakers understand German should not be taken seriously: almoust every Catalan speaker understands Spanish, every Occitan speaker understands French, almoust every Belorusian speaker understands Russian... Still, all these languages have own wikipedias. Kneiphof 15:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Node ue 06:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Like Ripuarian, Palatinian has a language history of its own within the community of languages which form the German language area. de:Benutzer:Reise-Line
    support71.142.79.248 05:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC) not registred —Pill δ 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support --Yes0song 14:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support -- 84.56.242.123 21:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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 Germany. 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]
    Raetius is wrong. I personally know many people from Palatinate who do not speak the so called "High German" although they moderately understand it on TV etc. when they read (German) books or newspapers loudly, they do so in palatinian. Whenever wording or grammar do not match well enough, the outcome is funny for non-Palatinians. The majority of those people is from rural areas, elderly, hardly computer-literate, neither reading or writing English; so they're unlikely to show up here and vote. -- Purodha Blissenbach 13:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Pfälzisch is not a separate language, just a specific 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) no anon votes, sorry. please log in.[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]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
    Arbeo, you're appearing stupidly ignorant to me in you ongoing attempts to descredit the root languages from which current Standard German has been created. Read the Article on the German language, it is an artificial language and thus should not have a Wikipedia would be as much an exaggeraton as your statements - only bending reality to the other end. However good, or complete, any Wikipedia will be, should not be anyones but the contributors business in the first place, and before not a comparable amount of labor has been invested, a 'comparison' to the German WP is impossible and pure perjudice. Your (presumably intentionally) false claim about all non-fictional text were in Standard German is ignoring the tiny bit of more than 1000 years of history before something like Standard was begun to be constructed, driven by political interest, and even evidently false thereafter. The Hanse, a multinational organization comparable to EFTA, EWG, or the current European Union (at least) in its early years, always had Low German, (Plattdüütsch) as their official language. The EU only recently embraced the baltic states and is slowly catching up somewhat to the former Hanse. Read the "German Dialect" section in the German Wikipedia Article on false friends - it lists a handful words that are different betwwen Standard German and some other German language, and at the same time prone to provoke misunderstandings since they're sounding similar to something else. These examples are not even the snowflake on the tip of the iceberg. For one German minority language alone, I could give you a list of several hundreds more 'false friend' words, leave alone the ones not bearing any similarities, leave alone the fact, that there are almost no identical words (sharing both meaning and pronounciation) leave alone quite remarkable differences of grammars. (Compare this to e.g. language pairs like Dutch/Afrikaans, Bokmâl/Nynorsk, Urdu/Hindi - all undoubtedly different languages recognized by international standards on the highest possible level of differentiation, ISO-369-1 - even though Hindi/Urdu are 100% mutually intellegible deviating in less than 2 dozen words) There is a motion of ultra right wing extremists that there should be ony one unified language with which all others must be brought in line (see also German Wikipedia on Luxembourgish, re dräimol Lëtzebuergesch, under Hitlers reign). Arbeo I offer you an examination to publicly prove your claim, that there were only some slight spelling deviations between the various Languages of Germany. Knowing of the huge set of 'false friend's at disposition, I know that you're bound to fail a test, if you're really as ignorant as you appear to be presenting youself here. If you take the challenge and do not fail, however, that would then clearly document that (a) vast differences in additon to spelling exist, and (b) make evident that you are very knowleadgeable about them and purpously misinforming readers here, likely following some hidden personal or politcal agenda. Interested? -- Purodha Blissenbach 16:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose NO NO NO! See Arbeo - what next Berlinerisch? Where is the end, if any minor dialect gets his won Wiki? Kenwilliams 20:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ken, have you ever heard of the slippery slope logical fallacy? This is it! "We can't admit variant X, that'll lead us to accept even smaller scale variant Y in the future". I recommend that you stay away as long as you do not show any knowledge of the linguistical landscape in Germany. The term "German" is very, very unlucky, since the variants spoken by people identifying as German are, however related, definitely not the same language. Saying that a Low Saxon or a Bavarian does not speak "German" as such (that means, either Standard German or another High Franconian dialect) does not mean he isn't German. Palatian is Middle Franconian, it has a different history and a different present state. Its speakers are Germans, their language may be German but it is a different language from the language of the Bundestag and the theatre. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 13:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kenwilliams, if any minor dialect gets his won Wiki? (as you write), this would (a) only be for those language variants having enough supporters who also take on themselves to make an own Wikipedia and thus do not already feel at home in an existing one, i.e. if there is demand, and (b) it was exactly what Wikimedia Foundation set out to do in their mission statement. (c) Who does not like the language might safely ignore it's Wikipedia, and (d) it enriches the world. -- Purodha Blissenbach 01:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose It's clearly a dialect, not a language. There's a definite dialect continuum and no "border" for Pfälzerisch. Plus, there's no standard orthography and not even a standardized "Hochpfälzerisch". Why didn't anyone suggest a Wikipedia in Sächsisch yet, or Erzgebirgisch? Or even better: Leipzigerisch (as the Sächsisch of Dresden and Leipzig is not the same). This request is quite silly in my opinion. If we had a Saxon Wikipedia, people from Dresden, Chemnitz and Leipzig would constantly edit between "ni", "net" and "nüsch". I imagine similar things for other dialects of German. —en:User:N-true 5:21, 15 April 2006
  7. Opppose. Spoken dialect only, no literary tradition. Wikipedia isn't Asterix. Angr 11:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose There cannot be a Wikipedia in every dialect! Dialects are different in villages with small distances. What is common between dialect in Kaiserslautern and Ludwigshafen for example? The only thing is that they are German dialects and write German standard. So both should use the German Wikipedia!
    Auf Deutsch: Man kann doch nicht für jeden Dialekt eine eigene Wikipedia aufmachen! Wir sollten lieber froh sein, dass es die deutsche Standard-Schriftsprache gibt, mit der wir uns alle problemlos verständigen können (auch in gesprochener Form) und nicht jeden regionalen Dialekt verschriftlichen wollen. Dies ging im Elsass schon daneben, mit dem Ergebnis, dass dort heute Französisch gesprochen wird! --Juhan 19:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    Juhan You are opposing something that noone asked for. Not a Wikipedia for every town, but one for all of the Palatinian language varieties is being requested. That is for about as many people as living in Norway, for example. You must imho either allow Palatinian terms and Palatinian writing in the German Wikipedia, if you want to invite Palatinians to participate, or you have to allow them to go on their own. Opposing both - as you do here, and the German Wikipedia does by disallowing dialect use and most dialect term - together builds up to a harrassment against the Palatinian language which demands that it must not be used by people to express themselves (in the Wikipedia context, that is) Palatinian is no doubt one of the root languages, that todays German developed from. Why are German people so fascistly against their own roots? It is clearly a fascist attitude, when one says: "So both should use the German Wikipedia!" since it is you trying to tell someone else what to do, taking away his/her freedom to make his or her own choices. How would you feel if someone came along to tell you, since you're capable of reading and writing English, you should use the English Wikipedia which is five times bigger, far more acurate, etc. and the German language Wikipedia were now unavailable to you? --Miss van der Roehe 14:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Per all that is said above, it is not good if we start admitting dialects Baristarim 05:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose No test wikipedia, another german language wikipedia -- Raghav 14:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Not a language, spoken dialect only. --Obersachse 21:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Oh no, please not another dialect Wikipedia! I know it is nice and funny to write some articles in your "mother tongue" but there are far to many dialects and the benefit for dialect Wikipedias is nearly zero. Moreover all these dialects are not standardized so edit wars are foreseeable because every user wants the article to be written in his village dialect. Of course, working on Wikipedia should be fun. But it should be serious, too. And not just kidding. --89.49.91.13 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:RokerHRO)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral - by the way, I oppose a Portuguese wikipedia. Portuguese is not a separate language. It's just a mispronouncing of a Spanish province. Stettlerj 22:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Get a life! You are opposing each language proposal! By teh way, the english you used to write this line is a mispronouncing of German and Latin, so stop talking it. --200.196.164.18 15:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You take me seriously! The January 11 comment was a sarcastic reply to a comment that was made opposing the Pfalzisch wikipedia. Since the comment has been removed from its original context and does no longer follow the comment it makes fun of, the comment makes little sense or no sense! I don't know who takes our comments and removes them from their contexts.Stettlerj 18:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (It was a reply to this Jan. 10th comment : Oppose - Pfälzisch is not a separate language, just a specific mispronouncing of a German province. Moreover, where should this trend to create new splitted WPs lead? 84.163.38.161)[reply]
  2. 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]
  3. neutral' : I can not give an advice without anymore information, as Hégésippe explain it too. Grimlock 17:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote in french (On November, the 15th 2006 : 30 support, 3 oppose and 13 who will involve themselves)

Comments

  • There is currently no community. I'll be glad to support such an attempt to rebuild the french wikiquote, but only if you can find at least ten reliable and established Wikimedians/Wikipedians ready to invest themselves to help you with the project. Solensean ᛁᛉᛁ 01:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus que 8 on est deux ;) Greudin
No :) You're alone..Solensean ᛁᛉᛁ 13:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted quotes in "Gascon", and I got their from my neighbors. Anyone are gotten from any book, and are quotes used in their family when they were young. How can I must write the source of these quotes?J'avais écris toutes les citations de la page en "Gascon", que j'avais eu grace à mes voisins. AUCUNE n'étaient sortie d'un quelconque livre; elles étaient utilisée dans leur famille, quand ils étaient jeunes, et que cette langue se parlait encore courrement dans la campagne. Comment indiquer la source de ces citations ? Lolo 32ᛁ 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand GRONDIN (user:Grondin) is the 1st volunteer to be the bureaucrate on fr.wikiquote. Greudin 20:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. I would like to contribute to this project. Poppypetty 18:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC) (fr:User:Poppy).[reply]
  2. I can also help, particularly in the beginning. Seb35 22:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Quand vous voulez, on peut s'y mettre --Jonathaneo 13:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Une 5e...--BeatrixBelibaste 18:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC) (fr:User:BeatrixBelibaste).[reply]
  5. --Absar 11:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Moi aussi, mais tant qu'à faire je préférerais Wikicitations. 86.217.125.20 12:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC) vote sous IP --Bertrand GRONDIN 09:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Enregistre toi, ça a bcp plus de poids ! Greudin
    « Wikicitations » est une bonne idée d'intitulé. L'emploi d'un nouveau titre permettrait de symboliser le changement par rapport à la précédente version. Teofilo 12:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I can help you a bit. Je souhaiterais surtout faire le ménage/rengement comme je le fais déjà sur Wikipédia. Et puis commencer un nouveau projet c'est se conduire en batisseurs. --Pseudomoi 21:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I don't have any problems of this. Sounds like a good idea. Computerjoe 11:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Of course. --Oldak Quill 18:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Full support, but only for public domain texts. --Bsm15 17:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Je veux aussi contribuer sur ce projet. Il est nécessaire avec un encadrement strict sur les droits d'auteur. --Bertrand GRONDIN 17:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Je veux bien participer aussi. --Zephyrus 21:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Je trouve que wikiquote est une bonne idée, elle a sa place près de wikitionnaire et autres projets. --seb.bernery
    Je suis bien évidement partant pour ce projet :D --Stooky 12:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Utilisateur non enregistré.--Bertrand GRONDIN 09:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - SaorhGumpaetx 15:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support T®eebark 01:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Grimlock 07:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --Jeffrey Garland 14:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, but olny public domain materials should be used Kneiphof 13:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. -- Nieks 13:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Albertsab@cawiki 09:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support --Fmaunier 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support --David_qc, 1er Novembre 2006
  22. Support 86.71.195.155 10:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC) pas pu m'inscrire, mais c'est moi http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Moumousse13 - j'ai enfin pu créer mon compte Moumousse13 11:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I can help in the begining, Rune Obash 14:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Avec plaisir, il faut juste me dire ce qu'il y a à faire :) --Messire Hephgé 09:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Pourquoi pas? Why not? Waarom niet? Perché no? Warum nicht? Mais, on devrait faire un règlement plus striqute pour controller les citations qui seraient contre la loi française. Booksworm 18:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support fully! I had just begun to contribute on wikiquote-fr when it was taken down... chtit_draco talk page 13:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Je ne peux pas aider car je suis pris sur le Wiktionnaire à plein temps, mais je soutiens ce projet. - Darkdadaah 16:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. jni 11:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Why Not ? fr:User:ChtiTux
  30. Support User:Kyle_the_hacker
  31. Support Why not? --Yes0song (fr:Utilisateur:Yes0song) 14:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I support a new fr.wikquote for old texts in the public domain only. I oppose the new rules that allow quotes from films and contemporary authors, because I believe this clashes the French copyright law. See Talk:Wikiquote FR. Je suis pour la réouverture d'un Wikiquote francophone seulement pour les textes anciens tombés dans le domaine public. Je suis opposé aux nouvelles règles qui incitent à citer des films et des auteurs contemporains, parce que je pense que cela n'est pas compatible avec les lois françaises sur les droits d'auteurs. Voir Talk:Wikiquote FR Teofilo 12:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit franco-centred, isn't it? Greudin
    Though it is the same reason why the fr.wikiquote was closed in the first place, because of those French(France) copyright laws. 132.204.207.108 12:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As Greudin says, French is spoken internationally. Why not base the rules on Canadian, Belgian or Swiss law? All this is irrelevant as the servers are in the US so will be governed by US law. US law permits such quotation. --Oldak Quill 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    J'ai perdu sans préavis mes deux pages utilisateurs qui fourmillaient de citations tout à fait légales. Je pense, avant de créer quoique ce soit, qu'il faudrait réactiver cette partie de l'ancienne version quelques semaines et nous laisser recouvrer notre travail initial. Signé QuoiNonne aka 82.224.88.52 17:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Vote sous IP--Bertrand GRONDIN 09:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose How to avoid the same problems happening again ? Traroth 21:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose w italy! --Giancy @ Meta 15:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people willing to involve themselves in the project

I'd like to see a list of people willing to involve themselves in a new fr.wikiquote. Write your name below.Solensean ᛁᛉᛁ 21:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Bsm15 10:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lolo_32 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bertrand GRONDIN 17:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maximini1010 17:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BeatrixBelibaste 01:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Poppypetty 12:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Grimlock 10:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 86.71.195.155 10:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC) idem encore moi pas inscrite http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Moumousse13...enfin identifiée je reviens pour que ce soit plus propre Moumousse13 11:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Fmaunier 12:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Rune Obash 14:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Messire Hephgé 10:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. chtit_draco talk page 13:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Greudin

Aramaic/Syriac Wiktionary

Template:New-language-template

  • I propose that the should be a new wiktionary intended for aramaic/syriac speakers. I propose that it be titled "syr.wiktionary.org". This would be a good resource for Chaldeans, Assyrians, Maronites, other Syriac speaking people. I do speak the language, know its spellings, and I wish to administate this webpage to prevent false definitions of words or mispelled words. I need to know how to establish this wiktionary and to change the fonts used within it. I am Makkow makkow and i would greatly appreciate the help. Thank you!
  • There are many languages considered Aramic and Syriac is only one Ethnologue gives you a nice overview about this. Wiktionary aims to have all words of all languages with a userinterface in one language. When you pick one, you face an uphill struggle. When you want to concentrate on adding words of one or more of these languages, you might include it in an existing Wiktionary project. GerardM 13:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support --Bentael
  2. Support Dovi 07:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Reo On|+|+ 01:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - SaorhGumpaetx 15:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support As the Aramaic is the language the Bible is written in! --Jeffrey Garland 14:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Very strong Support. --Ilario 16:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support A very good idea.--Bertrand GRONDIN 10:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support' As we say in French cassé! To those who said that Syriac wasn't an ISO 639 language code when it is Booksworm 17:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose syr is not an ISO-639 language code
  2. Oppose, i will have to agree with above about the language code Baristarim 00:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I agree with Jeffrey, it happened to be a great language, but now it's a hlaf-dead + it has dead wiki -- Raghav 14:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose the code is not compatible with ISO-639. GerardM 10:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And what is that: List of ISO 639-2 codes ?? 84.185.206.161 17:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Bhasa Wiktionary

Template:New-language-template

Support --Zabumon 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joual (Québec French) Wikipedia

Proposed by: David, 30 Octobre 2006 Quebec variety of French is spoken in Quebec Proposed domain: qc.wikipedia.org

Support Stettlerj 18:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support David_qc 1 November 2006
Oppose Vilallonga · (digui digui) 16:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its the same language with few variations, mainly in pronunciation, not in spelling or grammar. Unless you want to create an encyclopedia in Quebecois slang. --Alonso 19:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No slang Wikipedia allowed!! Rakuten06 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Acadian is not Slang, it's a vernacular language (variant). But I think it's too close to Parisian to have its own Wikipedia. You might change my mind if you create a flourishing test wiki at which many people collaborate. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 21:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Zabumon This is ridiculous. Quebec French is not a language, simply a dialect, and it has no written form. Anybody Québécois can understand standard French, so there is absolutely no need for this. The comparison with Norman doesn't stand, because Norman is a language, I suggest you read more about it. You see, the difference between Joual and the "dialects" of France is that those so-called dialects did not spawn directly from standard French, they evolved from Old French, as did Parisian French. Quebec French has no history of being a separate language. A Joual wikipedia would be completely useless, and since there is no written form for it, as it is not meant to be written, it would be a total mess. --Zabumon 00:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Bertrand GRONDIN 10:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Yes0song 14:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Is it true that Quebec French is different enuf from French French to warrant a Wiki? If so, is there a standardized orthography, grammar, syntax, et cætera?Cameron Nedland 15:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there are no standardized orthography, etc., but there is a Wikipedia in Normand or in other French dialects. Quebec Joual is strongly different from standard French! David_qc

Vai Wikipedia

Template:New-language-template

  • Hello! I`ve got one request for you. I collect words in various languages. Now I`m looking for word "sugar" in other languages, but I can`t find a Vai dictionary. I`ve got counterparts of word "sugar" in Japanese, Ahmaric, Thai, Georgian and Chinese, so can you write me what is "sugar" in Vai language? I`ve got this word in 317 languages and dialects of many regions and countries in the world so it is very important for me! Thank you very much! Szoltys <talk>

Wikinews in Cantonese

Gagauz

Template:New-language-template

Support:

  1. Belgian man (nl na en) 11:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Second language in Moldova[reply]
  2. Support --Taichi - (あ！) 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Lenev 19:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Khoikhoi 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Zserghei 10:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Memty 12:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Kneiphof 12:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Antares 23:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Mehrdad 18:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Absar 16:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Sroulik 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - SaorhGumpaetx 15:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Baristarim 00:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - strongly support kk:User:AlefZet--AlefZet 23:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support --Imz 18:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --Mskyrider 08:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support -- Don Alessandro 12:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Russianname 12:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --en:User:Luka Jačov 11:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support71.142.79.248 08:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC) not registred —Pill δ 16:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support --Zabumon 16:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support --Bertrand GRONDIN 10:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support --Yes0song 14:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. OpposeWhile I support a Gagauz Wikipedia, I think we must wait until there are native speakers to support it. --Node ue 18:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is just the question I tried to ask in tatar language below, "where are the authors?" --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OpposeGagauz Wikipedia? You must be kidding. --Fratele lui Bonaparte, il cunosti? 19:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC) indefinitely blocked user —Pill δ 16:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I agree with Node ue here. With only 150.000 speakers, it is very important that have strong support from a few native speakers. Jeroenvrp 16:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A) No users that are willing to work --> b) No native speakers -- Raghav 15:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Sample text (Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 1) latin: Insannar hepsi duuêrlar serbest hem birtakım kendi kıymetindä hem haklarında. Onnara verilmiş akıl hem üz da läazım biri-birinä davransınnar kardaşlık ruhuna uygun. /cyrillic: Инсаннар хепси дууэрлар сербест хем биртакым кенди кыйметиндӓ хем хакларында. Оннара верилмиш акыл хем ӱз да лӓазым бири-биринӓ даврансыннар кардашлык рухуна уйгун.

Язучылар бармы? Кем алар? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The language code is gag and not tut. I have created a portal for the Gagauz language. NB Gagauz is the third language in Moldova; Bulgarian is the third according to Ethnologue. GerardM 15:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandaic Wikipedia (4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral, 1 comments)

Template:New-language-template

Support

Support, and also mandaic Wikisource should be open with Qulast and other Scriptures of Light. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support This Mandaic wiki should be open because this language is sacred to the Mandaeneans mainly for religios purposes and is in dire need of attention because this language is considered an endangered language with only 100 speakers left. -- Lokey3310 07:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#Support71.142.79.248 08:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC) No anon votes, sorry. Please log in.[reply]

  1. Support If you guys are gonna work on it then there's no problem. --Zabumon 16:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Yes0song 14:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Attempt to make test wiki http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/arc/ --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polabian Wikipedia

Template:New-language-template

According to Ethnologue Polobian is an extinct language. GerardM 21:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are some others, sometimes cause they was forbidden. If this language gets some supporters from the region it can work. --Peter Littmann 17:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am in contact with a professional slawist on the german wikipedia. He asked me: Who should contribute texts to a wikipedia of a nearly unknown language?

--Peter Littmann 13:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic in latin letters

Template:New-language-template

Support

Support! I will contribute to it! Wellcome to the incubator! I already write to farsi latin wiki and will support arabic latin wiki of course. Marchaban! Jazaq Allahu khayran! --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Oppose Although I do support the idea; there are some complex issues relating to this that must be resolved before this goes on:
  1. First: What is the dialect that will be used, or will Standard Arabic be used? The particular dialect Peter Littmann used at the Wiki.en "Talk:Arabic language" seems to be a version of Tunisian Arabic, please keep in mind that Tunisian Arabic is quite close to Maltese (which has it's own wikipedia edition.)
  2. What transliteration system will you use? I ask that you take a look at all the varieties of Arabic transliteration or do you plan to use the Chat Alphabet?
  3. Third: If the Standard Arabic is to be used, isn't it more efficient of using an automatic Arabic-Latin converstion system on Wiki.ar based on the Serbian and Chinese Wikipedias automatic converters? Or do you plan to use a Simplified version of Arabic?
As you see, there are quite a bit of issues to resolve before actually going on with this particular proposal. --Agari 19:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, I have to declare my idea and decide: I search a language and script in which most arabic and latin/roman letters using people can understand a text like a newspaper and can discuss things as their live, as actual politic.
      • Maltesian may be a god choice from my point of view, what do you suggest?
      • Transliteration: Dont know, please make a suggestion. It should be understandable/logic for someone who knows nothing about transliteration. I dont know the arabic sign of Ayn or 3 like in chat, but I know there is a city named Ain Draham in Tunisia.
      • I think a form of simplified Arabic would be good, so the most people have a chance to understand and discuss things like their live, meaning of respect, things which are important to them like situation in palestine, culture, why a arabic woman is not free to show her body as an european wife...

A other thing: I am german, but the first words I spoke today when I am not full awaked: kadesh wocket? I normal should use german words, when I think, but I think in other languages, too. I think: Scheisse, but I speak: kurba maj. Cause I just visited Ziolona Gora in Polska for a time of three weeks, I not learned many words just the words most often heared and used. Do you know such phenomen? --Peter Littmann 06:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose multiple wikipedias for the same language but different writing systems are waste of time and energy. Automatic convertion script will be much more useful. Kneiphof 12:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Strongly oppose; profusion of Arabic dialects and transliterations would lead to a huge mess. Mga 01:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - for you need some kind conversion script only. See sr, zh and upcomming kk (we are implemented cyrillic to arabic conversion, you may vice-versa the arabic-latin).--AlefZet 09:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose strongly - Never in all of history has Arabic or Persian been written with the Latin alphabet, so why should there be a wikipedia in these scripts? Why should any language be written in a script that it has never used before, and if you want this to help learners with the language, Wikipedia is not meant to make languages easier for foreigners. Furthermore, why should we be wasting time and energy on languages in scripts it never uses, when we already have scripts on Wikipedias that are neglected (Kurdish and Azerbaijan wiki has few Arabic alphabet articles, Uzbek and Turkomen has no Cyrillic or Arabic articles etc.) why shouldn't we be fixing those first? I tell you what, I'll support if I can get a cyrillic English Wikipedia.--Fox Mccloud 01:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If it is possible to make a kind of conversion script it should be made. I will keep my vote oppose, until someone explains me that it is impossible to create a convertor in this case. BTW, I will strongly support creation of wikis in Arabic "dialects" (Egyptian, Lebanese, etc.) Don Alessandro 11:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Berlinisch

Template:New-language-template

Support

Support We should be as accepting of Berliners as of Barvarians, Chinese, etc.Cameron Nedland 20:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think, it's a good idea. I'd love to learn more about Berlinisch. --Capsicum 22:25 CET, 16 October 2006

  • Support, en: …cuz I'm from Berlin and think it's a unique language even if there isn't much written text yet. / de: Ich bin dafür, da ich aus Berlin komme und denke, dass es eine einmalige Sprachmischung ist, auch wenn es nur wenige Schriftquellen dafür gibt. Berliner76, 8 October 2006
en: Just one opinion from a real "Berliner"!? bln: Wat'n los hier, ey? Keene weitere Meinung von'e echte Berliner Jöre hier - kann doch nich sein!? Berliner76, 00:40, 10 October 2006

Oppose

Oh I oppose this wikipedia, there is too many wikipedia's of deutsch.! -- KozakiUkr 14:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Berlinisch is a spoken language only. Berliners use standard German in writing, so de-Wikipedia is sufficient. Angr 16:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per above.. dialects are not languages, a dialect of a city is not the same thing as a language.. What next WikiTexan, WikiNew England, WikiCockney, WikiCalifornian???? Baristarim 00:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose same as Baristarim --MinionComma 20:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, although living in Berlin since 1972: Berlinisch is a dialect only, and it is not even spoken widely in Berlin which is a very open city; Berlinisch is present spoken in old districts with a population that never migrate and sometimes doesn't know the neighborough parts of the town. By the way, I guess that in the former East part of the city the speak some different dialect, so we should then make West Berlinisch and East Berlinisch to be political correct... -jkb- 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's wrong, most Berliner can still speak the language - and it's one of its own, even if mostly classified as a dialect. But it's true that the language is dying because it won't be promoted. --Berliner76

Oppose i was born in Berlin, i lived all my life in Berlin and i contribute mostly to Berlin related topics in De.Wikipedia, but i never write in Berlinisch and i don't think that a bln.Wikipedia will get enough contributors. 6 Million contributors is also a very optimistic number, because especially in Berlin there are many many people from other regions of Germany. i will surely never visit bln.wp. --BLueFiSH ✉ 15:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Oppose - Squatting of an official ISO-639 code .. Mbugu .. GerardM 10:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral or actually weak oppose. While I have supported most of the proposal for Wikipedias in German regional languages, I think this is one step too far. It's the dialect of one city only and not even considered a language by Ethnologue. These are not fruitful cicumstances for a Wikipedia. On the other hand, I must admit the Berlin dialect is pretty unique in its combination of Low, High and Middle German characteristics, somewhat similar to Town Frisian. I opt for a Wikicity. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 12:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bearnese Language (12 support / 12 oppose)

Template:New-language-template

Support

  • Support Bearnese language was official language of the kingdom of Navarra until it was brought to the kingdom of France by Henri IV, and was used by the "Parlement de Navarre" in Pau until 1789. -[E. Pène - 87.100.54.134 21:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)] 23:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support The kingdom of Bearn was more closer to the kingdom of England and the kingdom of Spain than the "comté de Toulouse", the bastion of the occitan language. --pépébéarnais 20:16, 9 October 2006
  • Support The language has a tradition. A must recover. --Vladyslav Savelo 17:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The orthograph of bearnese language resemble a little to the occitan, but the pronunciation is completely different, because it was influenced by its Vascon's roots, the ancestors of the Basques. In the past, before the roman colonization, the population of Bearn spoke a language which resembled to the basque language. --ebpo 17:13, 20 october 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportAmericans love the French!! VERY STRONG
  • SupportSUPPORT!Cameron Nedland 20:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The bearnese language isn't an occitan language. It is a "lange d'oc". There is several language d'oc, the bearnese is one of theses languages, the occitan is an other language "d'oc".

Adixatz --biarnlibre 11:25, 30 october 2006

  • Support The persons who are opposed to a bearnese wikipedia don't give arguments. They just say the bearnese language is an occitan language. And it's wrong. Because the bearnese people don't have the sames ancestors an the pronunciation of the bearnese is completly different than the occitan, although the occitan orthograph resemble a little to the bearnese orthograph.
  • Support I do say the bearness language is completely different from the occitan, the pronouncation is really different even if it seems to be the same thing in the writing and it's very important to take this in account then, the occitan is an other language, so LIVE LO VISCA BIARN --jaNatiK- 15:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The bearnese language isn't a dialect of any language, exept of the latin. --flo 14:28, 1 november 2006

Support its racist french if not approvement very good language beautiful71.142.79.248 08:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Anon users can't vote. Albertsab@cawiki 09:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose

Anwser by Stooky for guillom => The problem it is that we, the Inhabitants of Béarn do not have really strong bonds on Internet because of the pressure of propaganda against our language. Indeed I took time to yesterday modify the post well on the language because it was too short. 13:12, 8 October 2006 (GMT+1)
"Propaganda"... Wikipedia is not a political tool to make a language recognized. guillom 11:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Some links form Biarn: i see occitan, i see the occitan cross...

http://www.calestampar.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=64 http://www.pernoste.com/ http://escotasiplau.free.fr/oc/groupe/index.htm http://perso.orange.fr/nadau/indexfr.html http://www.biarn.org/src/evt_arcuelh.php http://www.radio-pais.com/ http://lcartdog.free.fr/parpalhon/parpalhon.htm http://crdp.ac-bordeaux.fr/capoc/ http://www.cfpoc.com/ --Gavach 11:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Bearnese is a moutain gascon dialect like birgoudan or aranese and this three dialects are very close. Aranese is recognized as the name of occitan language in Catalonia and official in all Catalonia. What do the bearnese authorities say about their language ? Au-delà c’est le gascon , dans sa variété béarnaise, que l’on rencontre. Il est issu du latin . En revenant vers l’Océan, le long de l’Adour jusqu’à Bayonne, on parle de « gascon maritime ». Le gascon est lui-même intégré au vaste domaine de la langue occitane ( from LA LANGUE BÉARNAISE/GASCONNE/OCCITANE). So The bearnese authorities say that bearnese is a kind of gascon what is a part of occitan language. They created the Institut Occitan in 1996 to promote the bearnese culture. I think there is a confusion that comes from the names of occitan language. You can say occitan or langue d'oc, but historically we spoke of limousin language during the middle age, or provençal language in the XIXth century. Nowadays, occitan could be called aranese in Catalonia and the occitans called their language by the local name of the dialect. But it's the same language. See en:Occitan language. Like a lot of non-official languages, occitan has a lot of orthography so it's true that you could find texts that don't seem to be occitan, but they are ! Few articles in the occitan wikipedia are wrote in moutain gascon dialects (aranese, bearnese or bigourdan). I think the proposer would recognise his language : oc:Bigòrra, oc:Nauts Pirenèus, oc:Banheras (de Bigòrra), oc:Argelèrs (de Gasòst) from oc:Categoria:Pirenèus Nauts; oc:Antonio Vivaldi, oc:Modovila, oc:Jeliòt and others articles from Lembeye who seems to be a bearnese contributor of occitan wikipedia ; oc:Val d'Aran and others articles from oc:Categoria:Val d'Aran --Pasha 11:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Vilallonga · (digui digui) 16:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I believe those who oppose it have shown more references and have more solid arguments than those who support it. Being a dialect it will have some differences, but it is nonetheless, a dialect of occitan. --Alonso 19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bearnese isn't any language. It's a dialect of Gascon and Gascon is, actually, a dialect of Occitan language. A Wikipedia in Bearnese has no sense. So use Occitan Wikipèdia. Pepetps 19:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. Bearnese is only a dialect. Like catalan and valencian--Albertsab@cawiki 21:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, racist french would be undermining occitan wikipedia by making sub-dialectal wikipedias.--Pere prlpz 16:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Lower Sorbian Wikipedia

See Approved requests for new languages#Lower Sorbian Wikipedia

Aragonese Wikiquote

Template:New-language-template

Support:

  1. Support -- Estrolicador 11:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Willtron 14:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --OiraM 17:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --CHV (O mío Buzón de Correus) 17:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC) (no iba a decir yo que no xD)
  5. Support Kneiphof 13:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Ebrenc 21:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Belgian man (nl na en) 17:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Cedric31 14:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --OiraMario 16:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Lascorz (N) 22:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Demonheart 22:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support--Jordi G 23:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support--Gavach 10:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iloko Wiktionary

Template:New-language-template

Wikisource

Aragonese Wikisource

Template:New-language-template Please note that Wikisource have theirs own rules for creating a new wiki. See for example http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Language_domain_requests/Rules_for_voting 555 14:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  1. Support --OiraM 17:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --OiraMario 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Willtron 21:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --CHV (O mío Buzón de Correus) 23:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Estrolicador 15:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Kneiphof 12:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Ebrenc 21:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Lascorz (N) 00:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Carmine Colacino 10:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Demonheart 22:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support--Jordi G 23:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support--Gavach 10:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Albertsab@cawiki 15:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for new languages/Siberian wikisource

Min Dong Wikisource

Template:New-language-template

Support

Wikipedia

Balinese Wikipedia

Template:New-language-template

BeeYanTow 比言头 09:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the Balinese Test-Wiki --Jose77 23:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in Chữ Nôm

Template:New-language-template

Chữ Nôm Wikipedia at the Incubator

Support

Oppose

it was a dead language, who can read it???

Comment

  • Is this just the Vietnamese language written with an old script? --Zabumon 22:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chu Nom was officially replaced by latinized writing in 1920. In South Vietnam it was taught as an elective before 1975, today it is taught at Universities only. Not many can read it or write it nowadays. Not long ago it was not easily possible to enter or display these characters on computers since the characters were not encoded in Unicode and no publicly available fonts or software existed. Only recently with the expansion of Unicode to ranges above 0xFFFF there have been fonts available to the public with Chu Nom. The technical circumstances have changed towards Chu Nom. Windows Vista (I am a Win user and can't speak for other operating systems) will be the first windows version to support these characters without modifying the internals of the OS and getting additional fonts. --Qtng 11:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in Hanja

Template:New-language-template

Hanja Wikipedia at the Incubator

Support

Oppose

isn't Hanja = Chinese?

so isn't most close related language is chinese??

Comment

I'm not technically opposed to using hanja (in fact, I'm glad there are people who want to keep it alive on the internet :)), but I do have one concern: hanja is just another way of writing the same Korean words, correct? I'm concerned that the hanja project would just go mostly unused because there's already a much more established Korean Wikipedia. I did find Automatic conversion between simplified and traditional Chinese which seems to be a similar thing, one language, two scripts, perhaps something like that would work? --Nikki 06:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such a conversion tool would be very difficult to create due to the existance of homophones which lead to ambiguities.
Just take this example: The Korean hangul word "수도" (sudo), could mean:
  1. 修道 "spiritual discipline"
  2. 受渡 "receipt and delivery"
  3. 囚徒 "prisoner"
  4. 水都 "'city of water'" (e.g. Hong Kong and Naples)
  5. 水稻 "rice"
  6. 水道 "drain"
  7. 隧道 "tunnel"
  8. 首都 "capital (city)"
  9. 手刀 "hand-knife"
--Jose77 23:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Jose77 said above says nothing about hanja→hangul conversion. A fully automated conversion of current ko Wikipedia content to mixed script is of course impossible (a 5% error for hangul→hanja might be difficult to achieve and still too high), but perhaps automated conversion in the opposite direction is bearable for a Wikipedia project since, unlike kanji→kana conversion, most hanja can be mapped to a hangul block in most cases. zh Wikipedia also allows input in either version which readers can choose to downgrade for reading. Perhaps the current Korean Wikipedia can be tweaked to allow editing in either script (already possible) and allow reading in a user-preferred version (this would need a dictionary-supported conversion similar to zh Wikipedia). If many editors can't be bothered to use mixed script, the same holds true for zh Wikipedia editors who don't use traditional characters when editing articles there, which I don't think has been too detrimental to its quality. Allowing user-preferred output at the Korean WP (probably with "hangul only" as the default for readers who aren't logged in, except in situations where the current WP already uses hanja) might avoid a lot of the double work a split would create: Instead of manual conversion of "hangul only" articles into a new Wikipedia, editors could use the same effort to convert the existing article's source to mixed script leaving it where it is – it would still be seen as hangul only except for users who have chosen "mixed script view" in their preferences or in a button à la zh WP. Articles or individual paragraphs that don't have any hanja information included yet would be displayed in hangul only (still better than not having them at all, as would be the case at a separate mixed script edition) – what happens at zh WP if content is created using only simplified characters? I haven't really thought about this, so there might be some major obstacles, and perhaps mixed-script supporters will still prefer to build at a separate site. Wikipediatrician 21:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Yes0song/ko 자동변환기 (written in Korean) is my scheme of the Automatic conversion between Hangul and Hanja. I think if MediaWiki will support the auto-converter, ko-hanja WP is unnecessary. --Yes0song 09:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in Old Norse

Template:New-language-template

Old Norse wikipedia at the incubator

Support

Oppose

Comment

Question really. Would an encyclopaedia written in Old Norse differ substantially from the Icelandic one? Even if we eschewed English, Latin and Greek borrowings, I think we would simply have an archaic form of High Icelandic. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 16:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in Ciociaro

People interested : N ciociaro 

Proposer: fabiosbaraglia --Fabiosbaraglia 12:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
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 
English name or description: English name or description 
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[reply]

Wikipedia in Phoenician (2 support, 1 oppose , 1 neutral, 0 comment, 0 people willing to work at proposed Wiki)

Template:New-language-template

Support - Wikipedia in Phoenician

  • Support For sure, if we accept extinct languages that were important this one must exist. --Zabumon 22:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This language is in need to be revive as this language is unique and distinct from Hebrew. If a dead languages like Polabian is being on request for revival as a Wikipedia, and sooner or later as a spoken language again, so must Phoenician languages too. — Lokey3310 10:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Wikipedia in Phoenician

Neutral - Wikipedia in Phoenician

Comment - Wikipedia in Phoenician

People willing to work at proposed Wiki - Wikipedia in Phoenician

Wikipedia in Romagnolo (12 support [6 native], 15 oppose, 2 neutral)

Supporters of this project should also consider that its approval could imply the splitting of Emilian Romagnol wikipedia in a Emilian wikipedia and in a Romagnolo wikipedia

1) Why?
Is there a law by which if a new Wiki is open, another one must be closed?
2) Why didn't you sign your message?
3) What is this banner? Why don't you post your message at bottom like all others?
When Wikimedia approved Wiki in Emilian-Romagnolo, did you know what you were about to approve? You approved something that doesn't exist.
Maybe somebody told you that Emilian-Romagnolo is a language. But that's not true.
As an evidence, if you go to on the home page of eml.wikipedia you will find the words emiglian and rumagnol.
But a couple of weeks ago there were one word: emiglian-rumagnol.
Now I understand: someone called for eml.wikipedia saying that Emilia-Romagna is the place where emiglian-rumagnol is spoken. I'm sorry. it's not true.
This guy(s) made a fool of Wikimedia.
Sentruper 20 october 2006

I'm changed from closing to splitting. --Ebano 14:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New-language-template

  • Very sorry, this is my first oppose. There exixts an (already created) Emilian-Romagnol wikipedia, with Romagnol contributors too. Cisalpin tongues need a unification-like habit rather than a division one. So I suggest Romagnol comtributors to join Emilian-Romagnol wikipedia. (I hope there will be a Cisalpin wikipedia in a long term future, but this is another matter). Cheers, --clamengh 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • REPLY

Subjects like unity vs. division are political matters. Please, this is not a political forum.

Not so obvious; and please consider that we have an idea about what is wikimedia.--clamengh 14:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to answer to these linguistic and historical questions:
1) Do you know that a dictionary Emilian-Romagnolo - Italiano never existed? Can you tell me why?

2) If you digit the word "romagnolo" in Opac [2] you will find more than 800 books. If you digit "emilian-romagnolo" you will find NOTHING. Can you tell me why?

3) HISTORY. Emilia-Romagna were born:

a) In 1861, when Italy were unified; b) In 1948, together with the current Constitution; c) During the Middle Age;

You don't know the answer? I can help you: if you go to this site, [3], you will find a list entitled "Dialetti emiliano-romagnoli":

  • Bulgnais;
  • Dialetto ferrarese;
  • Dialetto reggiano;
  • Dialetto romagnolo.

Do you agree that "emiliano-romagnoli" is only a geographic name?
So, Emilia-Romagna is a region (created in 1948) where many dialects are spoken: bolognese, reggiano, romagnolo, ecc., all of them were born in the Middle Age. That's why emilian-romagnolo as a dialect NEVER EXISTED IN HISTORY!

I'm trying to tell you that historically and culturally Emilia and Romagna were born lots of centuries before the creation of the Region. The feeling of being "romagnolo" and "emiliano" is VERY CLEAR to anyone who is born in these two lands.

If you want to know more, please go to [4].

As soon as "rmg.wikipedia.org" will be created, things will be much more clear: "eml.wikipedia.org" for all dialects from Emilia, and "rmg.wikipedia.org" will be good for Romagnolo.

Thank you!

Sentruper 13 October 2006

Thank you for being so kind. I mean linguistic unity of course, not any kind of politics. See G.Hull: The linguistic untiy of Northern Italy and Rhaetia. This includes Emily and Romagna. Cheers, Claudi--213.140.6.119 18:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--clamengh 19:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[temporarily removed inasmuch as premature]

Support

  • Support As Emiliano and Romagnolo are two different languages, the Emilian-Romagnolo Wikipedia is just confusing. A two-language Wikipedia has never been seen. EliaR 16 October 2006
  • Support Each language reflects its own culture and country. So, if I can agree that for foregein people Romagnolo is very similar to Bolognese or other Emilian languages from a phonetic point of view, I think that the background history of Dialetto Romagnolo is big enough to justify a separated wiki-version. And if some oppose persist, I can tell him in every moment jus a bit of this great history... Sgniafuz!!! --Nadir 13:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Emiliano-Romagnolo language? It's a joke? It's like if I say Piedmontese-Ligurian language, or French-German language! Emilian language is the language of Emilia and a province in Tuscany, Romagnolo language is the language of Romagna and some pieces of Marche. And they're very different. --Ebano 20:03, 7 November 2006
  • Support a i ò magari capì l'ultma fras!

Oppose

Oppose -- The last sentence is false. Emilian-Romagnol is used in the Romance Philologie, instead Piedmontese-Ligurian is not used, but we always find only Piedmontese or only Ligurian. -- Arcobalengo 7 November 2006
  • Oppose It would duplicate an existing and recently created project: moreover its creation would imply that:
Emilian Romagnol wikipedia should be closed (supporters of this wikipedia could oppose Emilian or Romagnol wikipedias separately)
an Emilian wikipedia should be requested ab ibitio.

Is it worthwile?--Bz.ti.ch 07:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, I hadn't noticed this fact. It is quite correct: it is a problem. At present I am afraid I would oppose even a separate Emilian wikipedia. Regardless of this fact, EML wikipedia couldn't act in a different way from the one in which it gained consensus. It would be posh this request to be withdrawn. Thank you--clamengh 14:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My feeling is that the best thing to do is to unite and not to split, why Romagnolo cannot be developed within Emiliano-Romagnolo? Given the differences, those cannot be accomodated within the existing framework? I feel this is the old "campanile" way of thinking of most dwellers of the Italian peninsula, whereas even two towns few kms apart have different languages (this may happen, of course, but not as often as it is claimed).--Carmine Colacino 10:44, 18 October 2006
  • NO VOTE -- Well, according to ISO 639-3, Romagnolo isn't a language, so it shouldn't exists a Romagnola Wikipedia. This is just for standardization because IN FACT Romagnolo is very different from Emiliano, but this is an ISO problem: they should edit their references... - MisterX 18:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Of course, when on the Emilian-Romagnol Wikipedia the Romagnol variety will have thousands articles, I will change my opinion. -- Aprilx 17:15, 19-10-2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose . Emilian-Romagnol is a group of closely related dialects stretching from (the partly Lombard) Piacentino to (the Northern but a bit less Northern than others) Riminese. Saying that Romagnol (that is the dialects spoken in the provinces of Ravenna, Forlì-Cesena and Rimini) isn't mutually intelligible with Emilian (i.e. the dialects spoken in the provinces of Piacenza, Parma, Reggio, Modena, Bologna and Ferrara) is completely false and doesn't take into account the fact that the dialects spoken in the plain are often more obviously related to each other than the dialects of the main cities are to those of the respective mountainous areas (e.g. provinces of Modena and Reggio). If we wanted to show this fact there should be a multiplication of Wikipedias which doesn't seem desirable to me, for two reasons: 1) the current Emilian-Romagnol Wikipedia doesn't possibly reflect Romagnol identity and self-consciousness, but it is much fairer to the real linguistic facts, which are made of variety in a unity having two names 2) I don't see how these two (or more?) different Wikipedias could be reasonably developed: the existing Bolognese page is full with mistakes showing insufficient knowledge of the language (dialect) used; furthermore, the indigenous name of Romagnol is neither Rumâgnol */ru'maaNol/ nor rùmagnol */'rumaNol/ (!), but rumagnôl /ruma'Noel/ (please compare http://www.racine.ra.it/argaza/). This incapability of spelling Romagnol correctly shown by the defenders of a Romagnol Wikipedia is even more appalling if you consider that there exists an almost completely unified Romagnol orthography (compare the site above), even if sometimes local differences make it a little bit harder to apply.--Nad2006 16:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with what said by Danvit2006. Please let's cooperate together and eventually talk about a split if and when the project grows up. --Biopresto 08:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose to the banner on top!! .
Please, take care of orthography: Emilian, not Emiliain. Maybe you are English mother tongue speaker.
First, I'd like to know who wrote it, and 2) I'd like to know the reason why this should happen.
Why eml.wikipedia.org should have to be closed? "eml" is for Emilia, instead the abbreviation of Emilia-Romagna is "emr" everybody knows that. So, both wiki could live.
If you take a look to the home page you'll read "Ai én 47 paagin in emigliàn e rumagnòl" (There are 47 pages in Emiliano and in Romagnolo).
That's because no healthy people could argue, for whatever reason, the Emilian-romagnol exists.
So, I gently suggest to the author of this banner to change his mind.
Please, let's face reality: we are talking about something (Emilian-Romagnolo) that never existed in history.
Sentruper 19 october 2006

  • More collaboration, please. All together in EML, you would have more chance to survive as a wikipedia; to see the author of any edit of any page, simply check its history. But, please stop personal attacks on other contributors: we are all wealthy, simply there exist different points of view. Remember that you can edit this page as well. About why eml cannot be only Emilian, please see the explications by Bz.ti.ch above: he/she is right. Good luck --clamengh 17:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) the current Emilian-Romagnol Wikipedia doesn't possibly reflect Romagnol identity and self-consciousness, but it is much fairer to the real linguistic facts, - Bz.ti.ch
For the sake of truth: eml is for Emilia and rmg is for Romagna. The abbreviation of Emilia-Romagna is emr.
Eml.wiki is discriminatory against people from Romagna: it means that Romagna is an appendix of Emilia. No wikipedians from Romagna will never accept this.
OK, let's collaborate, for fixing the error made with the creation of eml.wikipedia.
This wiki was created confusing the issue of Emilia-Romagna, that is simply one of 20 Regions of Italy.
If only 1 wiki can survive, let's close EML and open EMR.Wikipedia and all of us will live in joy and happiness.  :-) Sentruper 20 october 2006

Sorry but eml stands for Emiliano-Romagnolo (ISO 639-3) and not for Emilia (Emilia is a geographical region in Italy as much as I know and not a language) - that does not mean that this is considered to be one language, but simply that ISO chose to attribute eml as a code (if iso chose number codes, well than we whould have probably had something like 78756). It is clear that these three letters have been chosen because they are easy to combine with the words itself when you need to remember them working on languages. Really it could be any code. It is a linguistic code and nothing else - no discrimination at all. Btw. rmg is the code for Traveller Norvegian (have to read up on that language ... thanks for pointing me to it) so it cannot stand for Romagnolo. The Emiliano-Romagnolo wikipedia already takes into count that there are differences and opens with a main page that leads to the various languages included in the ISO 639-3 code.
Besides that you should also consider that you have just three people who want to contribute - out of these three probably only one will remain a continuous contributor. Working together helps to go through these periods when you are working all on your own on a language and having the possibility to communicate on one only wiki with people who work on articles in similar languages normally is a huge advantage. If you want to give your language the chance it deserves, you should co-operate instead of separate. You also should take this issue further and request separate ISO-639-3 codes by providing the necessary documentation. Co-operating on the eml wikipedia will have the following effects:
  • You are enough people who can deal with vandals (that can become quite time consuming ... in particular on small wikipedias)
  • You grow the community for your language step by step and all wikipedians on that wiki will be able to help newbies with how-to questions - when it comes to explain an interwiki-link and wiki links etc.: that can be done by anyone.
  • You make sure that people are really about maintaining their language and political issues get excluded by co-operation. (remeber: Wikipedia is about NPOV)
  • Once you have enough editors and pages in your language you can of course divide the wikipedia, but will it make sense at that time in the future?
Anyway: you want your language to survive: so work on it, create contents and co-operate to create a unique place where people who are about language, culture and bringing NPOV encyclopaedic articles can give their best.
Btw. did you know that Sykpe transforms a :* like used at the beginning of the above lines into a kiss? So baci ed abbracci (kisses and hugs) ;-)
--Sabine 11:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • not trivial, but I Oppose. I agree with the fact that EMR should be a better code, but it should be got as an ISO standard. That's difficult but far from impossible. Meanwhile, please start writing: every user could state this fact clearly at her/his user page. Best regards--10caart 11:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree. Even for me it was far from trivial, and I were sorry to oppose. The question of the code could be dealt with, in case of cooperation. Cheers, --clamengh 17:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are Many reasons for this, as I stated here, namely

  1. Working on eml is not wasting work, as in can easily be transferred to any other wikis
  2. There are very few of us working on this project already: further fragmentation would yield 6 useless 100-entry wikipediedias, indstread of a barely usable 600-entry
  3. While it is true that "emiliano-romagnolo" is not a language, the same can be said of Bolognese, Modenese, Ferrarese... So where do we draw the line? Is Sammarinese different enough to be granted its own wikipedia? Why not Porretta Terme? Lugo? Carpi? What about the variant spoken in the western quartiers of Bologna? My point: all (or most) of these languages/dialects/whatever have sufficient common linguisti and cultural root to be mutually intelligible.

If this is just a matter of visibility why not granting the domain rum.wikipedia.org and point it to the same wiki? Will that suffice? it:Utente:Piffy 87.17.39.114 11:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Yes, I believe one day these people will require a Wikipedia in Carpigiano, Lughese, Porrettano or Imolese. It's simply crazy!! We already fought a lot to have our Wikipedia in Emilian-Romagnolo and now they just want to destroy it in order to create eight, nine maybe ten weaker and meaningless wikipedias with less than 50 articles each. We gave each speaker the opportunity to write in his/her own dialect, why should we further divide ourselves?? We should try to join ourselves to have more power and not divide and nullify our efforts. it:Utente:Selks

RUM already exists, it's for Romanian. I checked out on ISO web site.
I can try to call for EMR code, I know that it's difficult but far from impossible.
But it surely will take me a lot of time.
Btw, who decided the code "eml" so superficially?
Sentruper 21 october 2006

Well, I did not choose this code, but considering that 99% of the projects use a correct ISO 639 code it was the correct code to choose because it describes what is being presented on the wiki - the whole group of languages included in the code. Considering that co-operation instead of working alone brings also more fun and lets go projects ahead it was a good decision. I is just a code for languages, not a code that tells you where you live. I repeat it could well be anything, but in order to not mix up completly things it should use ISO 639-3 or you get a similar situation like with Alemannisch ... the code they use is the official code for an Albanian language and often people who do not understand that language at all look at the domain name and automatically associate the code with Albania ... so consider that if you chose rmg as a code people would mix up Romagnolo with Traveller Norvegian - it is misleading, since people work with standards and up to now, lik I already said 99% of the wikimedia projects use ISO-standard codes. When Romagnolo itself has the prerequisites to get its own code, then you get it and eml will probably become a macro code. The other possibility is you have really many articles on eml.wikipedia that get moved to a separate wiki eml-ROMA or something similar. Taking any three letter code that is not in the ISO-list cound creat problems later since ISO is creating new codes and for sure will not consider wikimedia projects as an attendible source. There is a criteria how they assign the letters and that has to be followed for them internally. Anyway: it does not make sense to separate a wiki now now since it would multiply mainainance work on the wikis and make it more difficult to get the projects running. --Sabine 08:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Strong oppose - Also Biondelli and C. Tagliavini called this language "Emiliano-Romagnolo". -- Zuketort 09:00, 30 October 2006 (GMT+1)

Oppose - It's time to cooperate, it is NOT time to divide the forces! -- Rainbowl 10:00, 03 November 2006 (GMT+1)

Neutral

I'm neutral. I think that the problem is not decidible.
From a point of view, the Emilian speakers understand well the Romagnol speakers (and viceversa), so none can say that Emilian and Romagnol are two different languages.
From another point of view, the history of the Romagna was quite different from the history of Emilia. The results are described in the chapter Effects of the Lombard-Byzantine Partition of Northern Italy in The linguistic unity of Northern Italy and Raethia (© Geoffrey Hull, 1982). If someone is interested, the document is published on http://www.alpdn.org/alp.
-- Dragonòt 10:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your contribution.
About the first part of your letter, I suggest you to be more careful. Their origin is similar (words in both dialects come from Latin), but the intonation is totally different: Romagnolo has different vowels and is full of consonants. In fact a Romagnolo can well understand bolognese, modenese and ferrarese but not viceversa.
Sentruper - 25 October 2006

This sentence is totally false, at least as I am concerned :-) In addition, 'mutally intelligible' works, in general, both ways. it:Utente/Piffy 87.7.160.243 17:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiocherachimura: che cosa ho detto?  :-))))

Sentruper - 28 October 2006

Konkani Wikipedia

Template:New-language-template

Support

  1. Support --Purodha Blissenbach 23:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Belgian man (nl na en) 18:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support More than million speakers Kneiphof 12:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support--Eukesh 19:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Jose77 21:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support lo apoyo que bueno, realmente faltan idiomas asiaticos y africanos con millones de hablantes cuando donde hayan más computadoras hasta los idiomas con mil hablantes tienen chance por la hancha disponibilidad de tecnologia sí sí digo71.142.79.248 09:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --Zabumon 22:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

-->

Sater Frisian Wikipedia

See Approved requests for new languages


Reggiano Wikipedia

Supporters of this project should also consider that its approval could imply the closure of Emilain Romagnol wikipedia

Template:New-language-template

Support

Oppose

  • Oppose --Nick1915 11:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- A Emilian-Romagnol Wikipedia already exists - Laurin 09:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -The usual political trick of splitting a language into an infinite number of parts to kill it. A political and unfair move. To be rejected as such; noreover this is a trivial duplicate of an existing project; Romagnol wikipedia would be a duplicate as well, but showing this is a little bit less trivial. --Belinzona 09:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It would duplicate an existing and recently created project: moreover its creation would imply that:
Emilian Romagnol wikipedia should be closed (supporters of this wikipedia could oppose Emilian or Romagnol wikipedias separately)
an Emilian wikipedia should be requested ab ibitio.

Moreover a Piasentine wikipedia has been denied, and so should this one. Is it worthwile?--Bz.ti.ch 10:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Of course, when on the Emilian-Romagnol Wikipedia the arzàn variety will have thousands articles, I will change my opinion. -- Aprilx 17:15, 19-10-2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: more collaboration, please. All together in EML, you would have more chance to survive as a wikipedia. Good luck--clamengh 17:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - If, as stated, Reggiano is very similar to Romagnolo, I do not see why it should not be included in the already existing Emilian-Romagnol wikipedia. -- Carmine Colacino 19:30, 19-10-2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: already existing EML wikipedia--10caart 11:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: already existing EML wikipedia, local differences should be managed there until there will be at least 10.000 articles. We would not want a proliferation of local wikipedias (with the same logic there should be a wiki for any variant, there are at least two per province, and many more for the appennine places.--Biopresto 08:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Eynar Oxartum 23:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I am adapting this bit to what I wrote under the Romagnolo proposal, so sorry if I might oversee something.
ars stands for Najdi Spoken Arabic (ISO 639-3) so it cannot stand for Arsàn. The Emiliano-Romagnolo wikipedia already takes into count that there are differences and opens with a main page that leads to the various languages included in the ISO 639-3 code.
Besides that you should also consider that you have just one person who want to contribute. Working together helps to go through these periods when you are working all on your own on a language and having the possibility to communicate on one only wiki with people who work on articles in similar languages normally is a huge advantage. If you want to give your language the chance it deserves, you should co-operate instead of separate. You also should take this issue further and request separate ISO-639-3 codes by providing the necessary documentation. Co-operating on the eml wikipedia will have the following effects:
  • You are enough people who can deal with vandals (that can become quite time consuming ... in particular on small wikipedias)
  • You grow the community for your language step by step and all wikipedians on that wiki will be able to help newbies with how-to questions - when it comes to explain an interwiki-link and wiki links etc.: that can be done by anyone.
  • You make sure that people are really about maintaining their language and political issues get excluded by co-operation. (remeber: Wikipedia is about NPOV)
  • Once you have enough editors and pages in your language you can of course divide the wikipedia, but will it make sense at that time in the future?
Anyway: you want your language to survive: so work on it, create contents and co-operate to create a unique place where people who are about language, culture and bringing NPOV encyclopaedic articles can give their best.
Btw. did you know that Sykpe transforms a :* like used at the beginning of the above lines into a kiss? So baci ed abbracci (kisses and hugs) ;-)
--Sabine 12:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modenese Wikipedia

Supporters of this project should also consider that its approval could imply the closure of Emilain Romagnol wikipedia

Template:New-language-template

Support

Do you all hate the idea of a common Emilian-Romagnolo Wikipedia so much?? Don't you understand that together we could all have more power, divided we may only have seven or eight wikipedias with less than 100 articles each, all of them weak and meaningless? We all have a common Emilian-Romagnolo Wikipedia and the opportunity to write in our own dialect... It's stupid to further divide ourselves... Will you one day put the request for a Wikipedia in Carpigiano, Sassolese or Frignanese??!! Selks

Oppose

  • Oppose--Nick1915 11:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose-- An Emilian-Romagnol Wikipedia already exists - Laurin 09:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -The usual political trick of splitting a language into an infinite number of parts to kill it. A political and unfair move. To be rejected as such; noreover this is a trivial duplicate of an existing project; Romagnol wikipedia would be a duplicate as well, but showing this is a little bit less trivial. --Belinzona 09:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It would duplicate an existing and recently created project: moreover its creation would imply that:
Emilian Romagnol wikipedia should be closed (supporters of this wikipedia could oppose Emilian or Romagnol wikipedias separately)
an Emilian wikipedia should be requested ab ibitio.

Is it worthwile?--Bz.ti.ch 10:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Of course, when on the Emilian-Romagnol Wikipedia the mudnais variety will have thousands articles, I will change my opinion. -- Aprilx 17:15, 19-10-2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: more collaboration, please. All together in EML, you would have more chance to survive as a wikipedia. Good luck--clamengh 17:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: If, as stated, Modenese is similar to Reggiano, and Reggiano is very similar to Romagnolo, I do not see why it should not be included in the already existing Emilian-Romagnol wikipedia. It is much better to have a bigger, articulated project, than several small ones, IMHO --Carmine Colacino 19:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the contributions of Axx and Laqab... Axx seems to be a sock puppet of Laqab, doesn't he? Eynar Oxartum 23:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Now I am a sockpuppet! Thank you. Very nice. --Axx 20:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I am adapting this bit to what I wrote under the Romagnolo proposal, so sorry if I might oversee something.
mdn stands for Mbati (ISO 639-3) so it cannot stand for Modenese. The Emiliano-Romagnolo wikipedia already takes into count that there are differences and opens with a main page that leads to the various languages included in the ISO 639-3 code.
Besides that you should also consider that you have just two people who want to contribute. Working together helps to go through these periods when you are working all on your own on a language and having the possibility to communicate on one only wiki with people who work on articles in similar languages normally is a huge advantage. If you want to give your language the chance it deserves, you should co-operate instead of separate. You also should take this issue further and request separate ISO-639-3 codes by providing the necessary documentation. Co-operating on the eml wikipedia will have the following effects:
  • You are enough people who can deal with vandals (that can become quite time consuming ... in particular on small wikipedias)
  • You grow the community for your language step by step and all wikipedians on that wiki will be able to help newbies with how-to questions - when it comes to explain an interwiki-link and wiki links etc.: that can be done by anyone.
  • You make sure that people are really about maintaining their language and political issues get excluded by co-operation. (remeber: Wikipedia is about NPOV)
  • Once you have enough editors and pages in your language you can of course divide the wikipedia, but will it make sense at that time in the future?
Anyway: you want your language to survive: so work on it, create contents and co-operate to create a unique place where people who are about language, culture and bringing NPOV encyclopaedic articles can give their best.
Btw. did you know that Sykpe transforms a :* like used at the beginning of the above lines into a kiss? So baci ed abbracci (kisses and hugs) ;-)
--Sabine 11:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erzya Wikipedia

Template:New-language-template

Support

Wikipedia in Ebonycs

Template:New-language-template

I assumin u meanin Ebonix, n if dat tru, u needta find yaself sum soda stanadized foam, uddawize de iz gunna be sum maja kaos, fu.Cameron Nedland 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foo whap chu talkin bowp, mistuh "a blight from the streets"!? A bin understandin da ebonics! Bupp I knows we ain'p gahpp no stan dud foam! Spellin woul be CRAZY an you knows -- ya jus KNOWS, some cray-zee wipe folk'll shoo up in make chrubbo fo us ba pretendin dey speak da langgidg else mayhaps dey be thinkin iss some cahn ah joke. An I tellz ya nah bo, dem wipe folk, dey doan thin we needs uz own Wikkapeeda. A seen Jimbuhz mails on dap liss, he BEEN sayin evry chance he gip, dap ebonicks doan dezzuvv iss oan Wikkah. An wit "decreolization" in all, mebbe nopp wurp nupn' twendy-thitty yizz tomp owswayz! An wupp we gun use? basileck?? acroleck?? mesoleck? Less wape fuh stablesh a Jimmakin Creole wikka fuss, mebbe dey kin sops awp summap fih us folk!

I would like to assume that both myself and my associate have absolutely no relation to the moron who posted the comment seen above (which I should note is not ebonycs, it is a combination of psuedo-ebonycs and net speak), we feel that ebonycs is an actual language deserving of recognition and that a Wikipedia in Ebonycs would only help Wikipedia and the Ebonycs speaking community.--A blight from the streets 16:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, don't be calling names! But seriously, you do need to find a standardized form for orthography, grammar, syntax, and vocabulary. When that happens, I'll support it.Cameron Nedland 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support--A blight from the streets 16:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support if one of the orthographies that has been developed is strictly followed for this dialect.71.142.79.248 09:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Not a registered user. Booksworm 18:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose

Oppose Ridiculous idea Booksworm 18:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most speakers of Ebonycs that I know can read English. PullToOpen 00:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Oppose btw, that's not its ISO 639 code (as far as I'm aware, it doesn't have one at all). --Nikki 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Karelian

Template:New-language-template

Support

Support71.142.79.248 09:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Not a registered user Booksworm 18:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose
Comments

North Frisian Wikipedia and Wiktionary

Template:New-language-template

Having started a test-wiki, I would like to propose a North Frisian Wikipedia and Wiktionary. The latter will be necesarry to cope with the large differences between the North Frisian dialects. I will mainly do coordinative work, as I did with the Sater Frisian Wikipedia. User:Pyt will collaborate at this project.

Support

Oppose

  • Oppose. I do love North Frisian, though. I will change my vote if the following conditions are met:
    • Native speakers are found
    • Insular varieties are not included -- having Söl`ring and Öömrang and Ferring etc. will only serve to complicate things to an impossible level. Just as Shetlandic dialects are excluded from Scots Wikipedia. I know they are all very small, but I am sure we will find some solution or another for them. Hey, after all, if we can have a Saterfrisian WP, why couldn't we have a Söl`ring WP or an Öömrang-Ferring WP at some point in the future? But for right now, I think this must be limited to the mainland dialects.
  • But I do wish you luck, unconditionally. --Node ue 18:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The system of many dialects in one Wiki is successfully employed for Dutch Low Saxon, see e.g. the Stellingwervian category. Pyt 00:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, "Dutch Low Saxon" dialects are far less divergent than North Frisian dialects. Second of all, even in their case, there has been some deficiencies. Over of a quarter of the articles there are written in West Veluws. Nearly another quarter are written in Stellingwervish. It is a poor situation that 75% of the content at this Wiki is in 4 dialects, to the exclusion of 5 others, who only have 25% of the content (6% of content is in Twents.) If it could be ensured that each dialect would be exactly equally represented, in terms of number of articles and which articles (so, for example, writing 1000 articles on places on Söl' in Söl'ring is not equal to writing 1000 articles about international politics, physics, and biology in Mooring), it might be a good idea. But it simply does not work. It is not inviting to the end user. You can only try to unify a Wiki to a certain extent, and in my opinion it is very poorly done in most cases, the only exception being Serbo-Croatian (where dialectal forms are often alternated in the same sentence, which although a bit awkward ensures equal coverage). All Wikis must: 1) Select a standard to elevate at the expense of other dialects, or 2) Opt for a more pluralistic approach. #2 does not work well in situations of larger dialect differences. If you are dealing with a language such as Scots, limited to the varieties of mainland Scotland, dialectal variation is no trouble because it is relatively small in written form. Dutch Low Saxon may pose more problems, but at least its dialects are still relatively close. However, with North Frisian, I hesitate to even call it a language. That is because it really can't be considered one. It is 4 different languages, as far as % cognation goes -- basically Mainland (including Halligen Frisian), Öömrang-Fering, Sölring, and Halunder. It's not acceptable to try to squish them all into one Wiki. --Node ue 17:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Node, I understand your concern - and share it. The differences between the various North Frisian dialects are massive and probably difficult to cope with for the average speaker. However, we thought one Wikipedia for all dialects would be better than two or even more Wikipedias for several individual variants. First of all: North Frisian is with at best 10,000 speakers a very small language. It will already be very difficult to gather some willing contributors for all dialects together, let alone for single dialects. Second: In North Frisia, tri- and even quadrilinguality is quite common. People grow up speaking Frisian, Platt and High German and learn English later. This means they are much more familiar with different but similar languages than say, the average Arizona resident. Third: creating two Wikipedias, one for mainland and one for insular North Frisian will not solve the problem. Within these two groups, large differences also appear. Söl'ring (perhaps 500 speakers) and Halunder (700 speakers at best) are not mutually intelligible with each other and with the much stronger Feering-Öömrang. Same goes for Hallig Frisian (only tens of speakers!), which may be a mainland Frisian variant but is not so easily intelligible by Mooring speakers. Must we create different pedias for those variants as well? That's highly uncooperative...
You say it would be better, but you don't provide any evidence. You can't just lump languages together because there are very few speakers. You yourself admit that they are not mutually intelligible with each other!! This is unworkable in a Wiki situation!!!! Also, I'm highly insulted by your statement about "the average Arizona resident". This is almost ad hominem. Arizona is irrelevant -- North Frisian is not indigenous to Arizona. Also, I doubt you've done any demographic research on language usage in Arizona. Just because you know Platt and German and your own Frisian dialect, does not magically allow you to understand languages you do not know! I do not propose to create one Wiki for Insular dialects and another for Mainland. Rather, I think we should start with one for Mainland, and worry about insular varieties later. There will probably be considerably less demand in that area, and we can deal with it as it comes. But it is completely unworkable to force Söl'ring and Mooring in the same Wiki. It's like if I told you you should combine nl.wp and fy.wp!
Of course we have thought of a solution. We will certainly include large pages about the various dialects which can be consulted by confused readers. On top of every page or alinea (if the article is written in more than one dialect). And it is not umsonst that we request a Wiktionary as well. We want to create a sort of comprehensive database in which words from other dialects can be easily looked up. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 09:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After this, with all of your "we", I have reached another interesting discovery -- it seems that by "we" you mean "Pyt and I". Another concern I raised above is that no native speakers have requested this Wiki! If you wish to have a single Wiki for all north frisian varieties, it is my belief that you must consult carefully with representatives of each dialect first as to whether this is desirable or even possible. My guess is that they will tell you to forget about it. This is not the way minority languages are to be handled. Just because one language is related to another, does not mean we lump them together, so long as they are not mutually intelligible. And also I would beg to differ about Söl'ring, Halunder, and Ferring-Öömrang being unintelligible. In spoken form, yes, I am aware that intelligibility is difficult if at all possible. But from personal observations, it seems that in written form the separations between them are similar to the various Norman varieties. Note that this does NOT include the mainland varities, which are basically a separate phylum.
So please abandon this request, both of you, until you can get some advice, support, and assistance from North Frisians, both islanders and mainlanders. I urge you. --Node
And after all, we can always consider breaking up the wiki later, when enough people are contributing. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 10:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why wait? It makes more sense to start a Mainland North Frisian WP. If people want any other North Frisian variety, it is up to their judgement to request. But again as I said before, let's wait for native speakers. You guys are being hasty. We just got native speaker support for Saterfrisian. What is your hurry!? --Node
I am not really familiar with the North Fresian dialect situation. That said, let me share an idea that might be applicable to the North Fresian variants as well. It is similar to what Chinese and Serbian already have. With those, you can select a script (traditional or simplified Chinese) or a dialect + a script (Latin or Cyrillic) and have the entire texts of articles displayed in that dialect+script automatically. Software takes care of the necessary conversions.
This can be done by simple rule-based transliteration, by dictionary lookup, or a combination thereof.
Propositions exist, to apply this principle to many more dialect groups. I had a lengthy talk with GerardM 'father of' Wiktionaryz about that, see also here, Section "Some more on non-standard orthography". I for one am convinced that, for some (or many) variants of the Ripuarian dialect continuum e.g., this provides a good method to have a store one, display multiple approach which is likely to turn out far supperior to having to translate every article individually into every local dialect, where there are differences but they are not huge.
What is needed to make this happen is a good documentation of how the variants are spellt. Programmers and programs need reference material. So I agree with your approach to have such data collected. I for one would suggest to put e.g. boxes into the Wikipedia articles where lemmas are translated into various dialects, so as to make them visible and likely to be filled in. Programs will later use these boxes contents to build a dictionary. A separate Wiktionary might be an additional option for those words that make no good lemmas, but maybe the same information could as well be derived from translated articles or sections. --Purodha Blissenbach 11:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Purodha, this can of course work to some extent, but functionality becomes difficult when you encounter syntactic grammatical differences as well. Insular North Frisian varieties can very well be termed individual "microlanguages" (in that they have small numbers of speakers, but are not mutually intelligible). Besides, to what extent inter-dialect translation should be used or not is quite a slippery slope. Should we have one Wiki for all Western Germanic languages? No? Then what about perhaps all West Middle German varieties? We already have 4 Wikipedias (and 1 proposed new one) in these languages. But they all have greater mutual intelligibility than Insular North Frisian varieties. Their grammar and syntax is similar enough that a converter for just vocab would surely work. It saves space and makes for cooperation. If you looked at a tree with cognation rates, the WMG languages would be much closer to one another than the individual INF varieties (not to mention their mainland counterparts!). --Node
Long ago I learned Mooring North Frisian by reading a periodical and knowing only West Frisian, Dutch, and a bit English. At that time, I had no dictionary, grammar, or learning book available. I am really not a polyglot, so I feel we don't need to fear too much for reading problems in this case. After all, North Frisians are people familiar with a bilingual situation too.--Pyt 18:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, why not combine the West Frisian, North Frisian, and Dutch Wikis? Just because you can _learn_ to read it with a little practice at reading it, does not mean it is convenient. As I said before, no native speaker requested this Wiki, and it all seems a little hasty. Stq.wp really could use some help right now -- just because it has one user doesn't mean you should abandon it. --Node
Seems a logical conclusion, but the North Frisian dialects (perhaps apart from Halunder) share one regional community, which the others don't. I expect native speakers to take over soon (already 212.51.20.114) and then I will return to Wp/stq. --Pyt 11:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, still another one: 87.122.1.122; I thought it was me, but it isn't. I don't know why they stay anonymous; perhaps to get used to Wikipedia. --Pyt 12:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Kölsche Wikipedia mit Orthographie nach Adam Wrede

Template:New-language-template

Some users in the Ripuarian Wikipedia want a Kölsch only Wikipedia, following the specific spelling as published by Adam Wrede.

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose Cannot find "ksh" or "koelsch" in the ISO 639 list. And what I said already for "Pfälzisch" applies here, too --89.49.91.13 21:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:RokerHRO)[reply]
  2. Oppose This is not the right place for the spelling discussion on ksh. Nobody acting here really wants this second wiki, they only want their favorite spelling on the existing ksh wiki. --::Slomox:: >< 14:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral --Purodha Blissenbach 22:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Questions

What does "nach Adam Wrede" mean?Cameron Nedland 03:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A specific spelling of Kölsch. (There are several, Wrede's is a bit aniquated and not usually used today, but has a high degree of overlap, and good understandibility for those educated in German writing and ethymology) --Purodha Blissenbach 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a misunderstanding. A vote in the Ripuarian wikipedia has shown that a majority of users from different ripuarian dialects wants to have a new interface in a standardized orthography as documented by the linguist Adam Wrede from Cologne. Purodha is the translator of the interface which is currently in use and which was never approved by the community. He was the only user to oppose the vote for a standardized interface (which would replace his interface). He claimed that this group of users wanted to accept only Kölsch (Cologne dialect) and no other Ripuarian dialects in the Ripuarian wikipedia, and that this would eventually lead to elimination of other Ripuarian dialects. However, this is not the case, since a number of users asking for a standardized interface speaks local Ripuarian dialects quite different from Kölsch. Apart from Purodha, nobody wants a new Ripuarian Wikipedia. I think this request can be deleted. Dbach 19:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC) (ksh:User:Düüvelskääl)[reply]

Almost all that is said before is wrong or biased. A minority of 4 or fife (of 119 registered users) followed an unclear move to have certain parts of the Ripuarian Wikipedia rewritten to Kölsch (which is only one of various Ripuarian dialects, certainly the one having the most speakers, estimated 1/4 or 1/5 of the total Ripuarian Speakers) Likely these users have little average technical knowledge, and as recent discussions showed, did not even know, what they were talking on (Wikimedia Interface, Lemmas/Page titles, Navigational templates, Links in articles, Article contents) Of course it is possible and was never planned or communicated otherwise by eveyone involved in these technical matters, to have the Wikimedia interface in as many Ripuarian dialects and variants as there are competent volunteers who type the required texts. One user insists in specialcasing Kölsch in several ways (in a very specfic spelling, too, of Wrede of the 1930s-1950s, see above, which is only about 50% identical with that commonly used today in most other Kölsch publications) and he constantly renamed existing Articles according to what he thinks, and rewrites parts of articles, eliminating other spelling or dialectal variants, to a high percentage that of anonymous (IP) users. As an administrator − although a native Kölsch speaker myself − I see it as necessary to keep such attemps to a minimum and usually revert them, since we have been entrusted with an all dialect Ripuarian Wikipedia, not Kölsch only in a specific spelling variant. I am cooperating in software development to better support multiple dialects and spelling variants, and I am confident that in some foreseeable time (2-5 years) we shall have an on-the-fly translator between dialects and spelling variants of most Ripuarian similar to the software that can output both tranditional and simplified chinese fom common data - provided we can collect enough varieties of Ripuarian in our Wikipedia at all. Currently said user seems not supportive towards that goal, up to now he has been rather eliminating variants. But we are in discussions, and that behaviour is hopefully going to change. --Purodha Blissenbach 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the only other Admin besides Purodha I have to add that Purodha is the only user expressing this view, while all other users who have ever expressed a view on that topic were not satisfied with the way this wikipedia is currently working. I must also add that, while I am not Kölsch and do not support a Kölsch wikipedia, Purodha in fact is Kölsch and has even arranged the ksh abbreviation for the ripuarian wikipedia, although other non-Kölsch users - including me - opposed this Kölsch dominance. Purodhas move for the non-Kölsch dialects is therefore an obvious strategy to draw attention from the issue of his non-approved interface. Dbach 18:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What does "nach Adam Wrede" mean?"
The "Adam Wrede" is an official dictionary of the Cologne language.

"A minority of 4 or fife (of 119 registered users) followed an unclear move ..."
That's a lie. A great majority voted in summer to use the Adam-Wrede-Spelling. Our problem, we have 119 registered users, but only 6 regular writers and two Admins with a different opinion. Conclusion: We need a third Admin to have an Admin-majority. --Jüppsche 01:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Message-Interface for the ripuarian version of Wikipedia [5], which is used for the moment, was invented by Purodha Blissenbach. His rules of spelling ripuarian expressions isn't representative for ripuarian dialects. This has to be changed. A new Interface has been constructed on the basis of modern ripuarian literature (for example: the ripuarian version of Asterix). The spelling of the new Message-Interface is based on well documented rules. Two sources have been used: the Akademie för uns kölsche Sproch and the books of Adam Wrede. For more Information about the sources look at the header-lines of the Interface. Nobody wants a limitation concerning the spelling of articles. But for the navigation (Message-Interface, categories, templates, and so on) a standard has to be found, so that not only one user a few users are able to follow the spelling. We need some testing of this new Interface.--Metacaesius 16:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks

Tajik Wikibooks

Template:New-language-template

Support

Oppose

Javanese Wikibooks

Template:New-language-template Work in progress on the test: http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wb/jv

Support

  1. Support - This language has a rich written history spanning from 804 AD and many, many native speakers. Therefore this language deserves a wikibooks domain. Meursault2004 08:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Borgx 10:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Belgian man (nl na en) 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support and will work on this, Slamet Serayu 01:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Taichi - (あ！) 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Language with old written tradition Kneiphof 12:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No doubt for supporting the proposal. Kembangraps 13:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. --Lumijaguaari 04:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Zabumon 21:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Wikiversity Language Requests

Requests for creating a new language version of Wikiversity are a bit different from requesting a new language version of Wikipedia. In addition to making a formal request below, there must be a demonstration of support from at least 10 different users before the Wikiversity edition may be created. Existing Wikiversity websites. Discuss new language versions of Wikiversity at the Wikiversity Beta multlingual hub.

See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-August/009074.html for some additional details.

*Note* - the discussions below do not concern support or opposition to the concept of Wikiversity, just if you support the creation of a new Wikiversity website for a particular listed language.

English Wikiversity

The English language Wikiversity was launched on 15 August 2006; see the English language Wikiversity website. Guillom 15:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Wikiversity

The German language Wikiversity was launched in 2005; see the German language Wikiversity website.

Spanish Wikiversity

The Spanish language Wikiversity website already exists.

French Wikiversity

Support

  1. Support Great project ! I will help. Traroth 21:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Me too. Strong support. Guillom 08:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support So do I / Moi aussi --Grimlock 08:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Just to see how the project could evolve. But I am afraid that, initially, its viability is limited to the three languages (English, German and French) which have largest Wikipedias. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 08:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support This project looks like exciting and crazy. Très intéressé par l'aventure. Jpm2112 06:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gdarin | talk 07:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --MatthiasGor 12:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --Reswik 03:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Great project ! I wish I could open learning projects where my students could be joined by external students and provide new contents in wikipedia or wikibooks as assignements ! and I will help. JmG 13:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Tibo 09:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Korg + + 14:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support ~ Seb35 13:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Greudin 16:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Sainte-Rose 11:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Nicostella 10:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --Purodha Blissenbach 16:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support --Bertrand GRONDIN 20:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support --Dpc01 02:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Mikel 02:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support --The Jade Knight 07:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --Pill δ 12:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Beuc 08:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC) - I think this is a great complement to WikiBooks.[reply]
  23. Support --Max sonnelid 11:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. (+)--Hillgentleman 23:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Portuguese Wikiversity

Support

  1. Support - Slade pt.wp 18:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Lightningspirit pt.wp 21:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - FML 01:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Roberth 13:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Socorsan 15:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - 555 03:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Lijealso 01:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Luis Sergio Moura pt.wp 14:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - João Felipe C.S 23:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Lgallindo 21:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Dpc01 02:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - SallesNeto BR 14:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support --Mikel 02:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Grimlock 17:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. --Lumijaguaari 04:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --Indech 22:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. (+)--Hillgentleman 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Neko 01:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

555 21:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Please, wait to beta.wikiversity.org is turned online.[reply]
Changing vote: no more informations about a beta wiki was released to the public up today. 555 03:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am personnally against the beta wikiversity, as Wikibooks seems to be doing almost everything that the "beta" wikiversity claims to be set up for, and what Wikibooks can't do, the Incubator Wiki supposedly can do the same as well. The Portuguese Wikiversity is currently hosted on pt.wikibooks at the moment, as there is some content development there. I don't know if I would encourage other language Wikibooks projects to start a new Wikiversity today given the semi-official (in beta) sister project status of Wikiversity, but I would like to see the beta proposal explained a bit more before it is turned on. --Roberth 13:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Don't turn my comment into a vote against. I'm actually in support of a pt.wikiversity! --Roberth 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Actually, the first mission of Wikiversity Beta is to be a global platform aiming at coordinating Wikiversity projects in several languages (see [6]). This is a place where people discuss together and develop general guidelines that will apply to all projects. Beta is also an incubator for people wanting to start a new Wikiversity, BUT I think participants shouldn't rush into starting a new Wikiversity project on Beta if there is already an existing one hosted on their Wikibooks. guillom 08:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've just described Meta (the Wikimedia Meta Wiki) here almost perfectly. So what is the Beta site offering that Meta isn't? Of the Beta site offering what the Incubator isn't? I still fail to see the value of the Beta Wikiversity website. --66.53.14.147 20:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiversity is different from other existing wikimedia project in its having original research. The beta is at the same time a meta-site and an incubator site. That is very useful.--Hillgentleman 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Wikiversity

Support

  1. Support --Purodha Blissenbach 16:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Baristarim 00:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Giancy @ Meta 15:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support why not? ;-) --Dario vet 20:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I admit that it is not necessary but, to improve the wiki-project in one of the most important languages, is surely functional and valuable. Andreabrugiony 21:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Wikiversity can stay on a namespace of wikibooks--Nick1915 10:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. At the moment I'm not certain there's a community capable of sustaining the effort. --Paginazero - Ø 22:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Wikiversity

Support

  1. Support let's not interfere with progress. Any kind of progress is better than none IMO.--Lenev 23:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Long live our serbian Slavic brothers! --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Why not? --Kaster 15:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Let's go for it --Estavisti 02:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

What exactly do you meen by commonly spoken languages!!?! Is Serbian language and culture not important and rich enough, or tens of millions of people who speak or understand Serbian are not numberous (important?!) enough? On second tought, I do agree with you. Furthermore, on the next meeting of Serbian Wikimedia local chapter, I (since I'm vicepresident) will demand that Serbian chapter be disbanded. Such a nerve we Serbs have.. to organize local chapter FIFTH in the world, even before all the important countries organized their chapters. -- Obradovic Goran 19:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's too much too soon. Serbian Wikipedia is pretty much the only living project in Serbian, let's get that one straight and then perhaps dictionary and books and only then, maybe, time could be right for 'versity --Dzordzm 03:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Wikiversity

Support

  1. Support, an important Wikiversity to get running soon. --Gray Porpoise 01:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, such a Wikiversity will be useful for japanese-speaking people Grimlock 17:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support--ウィキミーディアン 06:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Oppose Human resources (sysops, translators etc.) for the Japanese language projects are stretched so thin right now, I won’t be surprised if someone gets Karōshi (can be mentally as well if not physically). I don’t think it is a good idea to add another project in Japanese language at the moment. I also think that we should put more emphasis on quality instead of quantity, right now. I would not oppose this proposal forever, but I don’t think I would say “yea” anytime soon.--Californiacondor 06:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Wikiversity

Support

  1. Strong Support --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Steel archer 16:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gdarin | talk 07:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --MatthiasGor 12:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Mienski 21:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --A1 09:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Sobol 09:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Bartekbas 20:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Insufficient number of editors. tsca @ 13:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Roman 92 talk 14:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC). Czekam na odpowiedź na poniższe pytanie.[reply]
  3. Oppose - Mellonedain 16:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC). In polish Wikibooks we have schools books and we create it in this project. We couldn't create special wiki project only for this, because we have this same in special category and for us this is enought.[reply]
  4. Oppose Derbeth 18:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Kj 18:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Piotr 18:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Sblive 19:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose If that means division of Wikibooks --Antares 14:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Not precised purpose, as of now sounds like Wikibooks spliting into two parts. Michał P. 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Krzysiu Jarzyna 20:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC) -- Too few person editing. And what there is the aim to create the competition for wb?[reply]
  11. Oppose, maybe we have many contributors in Wikipedia, but in other projects, well... Hołek ҉ 09:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose --Wanted 03:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Komentarze

A nie lepiej podręczniki rozwijać w ramach Wikibooks? Zresztą na Wikibooks rozwijają się takie książki jak Historia dla liceum, Matematyka dla liceum, pl:Informatyka dla gimnazjum. Ten projekt ma już pewne doświadczenie, a tworzenie nowych (które można by było uznać za podprojekty Wikibooks) to po prostu moim zdaniem za duże "rozdrabnianie Wikibooks". Podobnie można by było podzielić książki na różne działy związane z komputerami, naukami ścisłymi, humanistycznymi itp., aż w końcu na Wikibooks ciężko by było cokolwiek pisać, bo do tego nadawałby się inny projekt. Piotr 13:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Co do powyższego mam pytanie: jakie dodatkowe rzeczy może oferować Wikiversity w stosunku do Wikibooks? Roman 92 talk 13:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that noone from voting for Polish edition of Wikiversity has any expercience with Polish Wikibooks. In fact, none of them even has an account there. The reality is that Polish Wikibooks lacks active contributors, teachers from schools and professors from universities do not participate in the project. Also another Polish language projects, like Wikinews, meet the problem with small numer of active users. I see no chance for Polish Wikiversity then; Polish Wikipedia side-projects are not well-recognised and opening another one would only increase confusion between users and readers. Also, when Wikiversity supporters still don't have common idea what their project wants to be, I don't think there is a sense to create its new language version. I suggest all Polish supporters of Wikiversity to engage in discussions and initial development of English Wikiversity, to create coherent policies, and then, if Wikiversity occurs to be successful, think about opening Polish language version. Take into consideration that Polish version of Wikinews came one year after English and German version. As Wikinews also was a "beta" project for some time, this situation is similar.
In current shape, Wikiversity may take users away from Wikibooks, which, in case of Polish Wikibooks, may stop its development. In my opinion, its better to support existing project with some successes than create a new branch of project in beta stage, not having clear identity and mission. --Derbeth 18:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish Wikiversity

Support

  1. Support --Purodha Blissenbach 16:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Icepenguin 12:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Tigru 15:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. The same what Derbeath said about Polish Wikiversity. Finnish Wikibooks lacks of users and there is maybe one or two finished books. And quality is low. I don't see where we need Wikiversity and how it differs from Wikibook. Linnea 19:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose --Kompak 20:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, I think there's no enough contributors. --15:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. I contribute in fi.wikibooks (Wikikirjasto) and I see that books can for the moment be worked on in Wikikirjasto - and even then there aren't enough editors. -Samulili 16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose --Alfred Dengan 13:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'd love to see this started in the future, but the most rational thing is to get this started in WB and if things look good, progress with the WV. --Jannex 19:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Wikiversity

Support

  1. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Steel archer 16:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
А чи буде в ній хтось працювати. В нас вже є напівживий Вікіпідручник і напівмертві Вікіновини. Боюсь, що цей проект може бути мертвонародженим. --Yakudza 08:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Шкода погано знаю мову, я би працював:-) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support Kneiphof 12:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support —dima/s-ko/ 21:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support--Vladyslav Savelo 04:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose--Fratele lui Bonaparte, il cunosti? 19:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC) indefinitely blocked user —Pill δ 16:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Edward Chernenko 14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edward, why? Do you oppose Ukrainian project because one russophobe supports it? I don't think it is really logical. Kneiphof 19:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Ukranians almost have no Wikibooks. The majority of articles in ukwiki are stubs and political not NPOV. What Wikiversity can be?" :))) Edward Chernenko 13:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Wikiversity

Please help translate Beta page (English to Russian) at http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0#.D0.94.D0.B8.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.BA.D1.82.D0.B8.D0.B2.D1.8B

--Lenev 19:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Помогите с переводом http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0#.D0.94.D0.B8.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.BA.D1.82.D0.B8.D0.B2.D1.8B --Lenev 19:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support --Lenev 17:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, of course. S.L. 18:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. --Zserghei 06:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support for sure. Edward Chernenko 10:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --ShurShur 11:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Intresting Kneiphof 12:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support -- Voevoda 23:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --Kojpiš Anton 12:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Kuban kazak 18:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose--Fratele lui Bonaparte, il cunosti? 19:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC) indefinitely blocked user —Pill δ 16:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose --Absar 16:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose per this(ru). Wikiversity is just the same as Wikibooks, nothing new in this project, but just different names for the same things. There is NO NEED in duplicating Wikibooks under a new title. Edward Chernenko 07:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I strongly Oppose to the creation of such a website, for any language. “Wikiversity” is nothing more than an attempt take an old idea (a wiki community for making didactic literature; see Wikibooks) and present it as a new beginning. Being a loyal supporter of the Wiki ideology and the sole curator of the Russian Wikibooks for several years, I can assert that Wikibooks’ goals and policies implicitly cohere with those of an open-content, free online educational institution. See also: the English Wikiversity’s mission statement; a Russian discussion and, last but not least, the origins of Wikiversity. To summarise: Wikiversity has no place, for it has been taken by Wikibooks: founding a website like this “Wikiversity” is like opening another Wikipedia (and calling it, say, “Wikiknowledge”) at the time when the first one is only developing. The only reason I see for such an irrational undertaking is a few individuals’ strive to be credited as “The People Who Started The First Open-Content University, Akin to Wikipedia”. Yeah right. Sorry, bu I can’t resist quoting the English Wikiversity’s creators:

    “So, if you want to read about a topic, you may be better off visiting, say, Wikipedia or Wikibooks, but if you want to learn about this topic, you can do so at Wikiversity.”

    (If you think that this makes sense, I deem you an idiot.) Ramir 09:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russians almost have no Wikibooks. The majority of articles in ruwiki are stubs and political not NPOV. What Wikiversity can be?

So, why have you voted support for Ukrainian wikiversity? True, Russian wikibooks are undeveloped now, but still, it has much more content than Ukrainian wikibooks. True, there are also a lot of stubs on Russian wikipedia, but it is so much bigger than Ukrainian one, so the total quantity of good articles is bigger in Russian wiki. Considering POV, don't forget that the gross majority of uk wiki artcles comes from old encyclopedia, published by Ukrainian nationalists abrod, so they are everything but NPOV, but probably you don't notice it, because it is the same (Russophobic) POV you have... Kneiphof 19:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Не пойму к чему Вы упомянули украинскую википедию, но не забудте вспомнить, что большая часть статей на русской википедии с безнадежно устаревшей более чем столетней энциклопедии, еще часть болванки с никому не нужными мобильными телефонами и галактиками, залитые ботами, еще часть - эссе на свободную тему или гомоспам. Собственно, если отбросить весь этот мусор, то число хороших статей не так уж и велико и не намного больше чем в украинской. Кстати, уважаемый Kneiphof, если Вы настолько хорошо владее украинским языком, чтобы делать столь далеко идущие выводы о NPOV, добро пожаловать к нам будем вместе работать на улучшение статей. --Yakudza 00:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Может я был излишне резок, но я действительно не понял с чем был связан "наезд" на украинскую википедию. Yaroslav Zolotaryov не является ее автором и выражает здесь лишь свое личное мнение. --Yakudza 00:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Прежде всего приношу извинения, если я кого-то обидел. Я совесем не хотел ни на кого наезжать. Просто дело в том, что основным аргументом Ярослава против русского викиверситета была неразвитость русской Википедии. При этом за украинский викиверситет он проголосовал.
Что бы объективно сравнить оба проекта я провёл небольшое исследование. Оно, разумеется. Не слишком академическое, но общее впечатление, думаю, даёт. Я сто раз нажал на кнопку “случайная статья” в русской википедии, и сто раз - Випадкова стаття в украинской. Далее, я выделил из выпавших статей стабы и полноценные статьи. В качестве критерия стаба я прежде всего брал не метку, а размер - примерно больше 5 кБ. В итоге у меня получиось следующее распределение стабов/полноценных статей: для русской – 68/32, для украинский – 74/26. Таким образом из 80 000 статей в русской википедии полноценными являются 25 600 статей (примерно 20 000 статей составляют статьи из Брокгауза, болванки о фильмах и галактиках и т. д., см здесь). Эти 20 000 я не учитывал при проведении статистического эксперимента) . В украинской Википедии из 28 500 полноценными являются 7410 статей.
Такие вот подсчёты. При этом я отнюдь не хочу наехать на украинскую Википедию. Я считаю, что она уже достигла неплохих результатов, особенно если учесть, что сообщество её меньше, чем у русской Википедии, да и активное развитие проекта началось несколько позднее. Но в то же время нельзя не отметить, что русская википедия более развита. Впрочем, я не считаю, что уровня развития украинской Википедии недостаточно для открытия своего Викиверситета - как видите, я голосовал "за"Kneiphof 16:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Может я тоже излишне резко высказал тут свое личное мнение, но по поводу содержания российской википедии вы, Якудза, совершенно правы. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. In fact that is blatant disinformation in my opinion. Russian Wiki has now more than 100000 articles (Catching up wih Spanish!!!) and the overwhelming majority are of outstanding quality.--Lenev 23:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian Wikiversity can, and will be one of the best.--Lenev 23:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is my opinion about the articles. But really wikibooks are more usefull for wikiversity, and they are definitely very poor. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your separatism. No reason for it, only your prejudgement --ShurShur 11:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you crazy? Even here you do not cease speak about your politics, showing that my words are true. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not crazy. You support Wikipedias on Ukrainian, Belorusian, Surzhik, Siberian and other languages, but you extremely oppose Russian. It isn't not a truth, it's your prejudgement to leading language of post-soviet countries. Only one reason for you: your offence to some Russian Wikipedians, who was not afraid to say you their opinion.
Russian Wikipedia is biggest of all ex-USSR Wikipedias and Russia *must* be viewed as the first pretender to be a first ex-USSR Wikiversity. It is a fact, not opinion. --ShurShur 13:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Big, but stupid))) Ok, I am speaking about wikivercity and wikibooks, and you begin with political accusations in separatism etc., this is offtopic, aren't you crazy in politics? Let us stop offtopic speaking here. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Зачем русским Vikiversity, когда они вполне могут освоить украинский язык?
Вот как раз для этого и пригодится. В этом Верситете они смогут организовать курсы по изучению украинского языка, . --Yakudza 00:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Да, действительно:-)

General comment: This is not a vote on whether the Russian Wikibooks or Wikipedia are successful - but rather to see if the creation of a Russian Wikiversity is warranted. The criteria for setting up a new language Wikiversity is ten active contributors - if Russian meets that criteria, it should be set up. Multingual coordination should continue on http://beta.wikiversity.org Cormaggio @ 19:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kölsch Wikiversity

This a kind of test balloon for now, to see if others are as well planning to work in Kölsch. Why a Wikiversity in a langage having not even a million active speakers? Well, passive speakers are estimated way above 20 million, but that is not the point. I will create a dual targetted language course over the next years, so the choice of the language should be obvious. No need to rush, preparation time shall take several months or a year, perhaps. Probably a single project is not sufficient, anyways, to warrant creation of a wikiversity?

Support

  1. Support--Purodha Blissenbach 17:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose The Wikiversity is a serious project that musn't be organized by one person. These projects needs a colaborative group for filling all the requirements that need in a Virtual University. Indeed, in the actual wikiveristy projects in "big" wikibooks, the growing is slow. --Taichi - (あ！) 01:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: While I think a Ripuarian Wikipedia is feasable, as are many other Wikipedias in minor languages with little literary tradition, I think a wikiversity in it is far too ambitious and bound to fail. In fact, I even don't see enough opportunities or possibilities for a Wikiversity in my native (standard) Dutch, a language with plenty of literary tradition but with too little competent potential contributors, as appears in the inferior quality of many Dutch Wikipedia articles. Make w:ksh: flourish and grow, that will already be a major challenge! Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 15:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. neutal - I think it is a valid thought to consider - not in the style of an "ordinary" Wikiversity like we have it for German/English ... maybe the name Wikiversity (at this stage) is not the correct name for such a project. I imagine a place where mainly the language and cultural aspects of the geographical region where the language is spoken are taught. I have to think a bit about such a project - why? Well ... Neapolitan is already considering "courses" for people who want to learn the language and about culture. Thoughtful wishes ;-) --Sabine 16:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Baristarim 00:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Wikiversity

Support

  1. Support --Max sonnelid 11:17, 4 November 2006 (UCT)

Oppose

Romanian Wikiversity

As Romanian is one of the most spread languages in Europe, I'm proposing the creation of a new Wikiversity in this language, too. Michał P.

Support

  1. Michał P.
  2. Alex:D
  3. Anclation
  4. Razvan85
  5. Andrei Stroe
  6. Arhitectul 22:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Turkish Wikiversity

There should be a turkish version too.I think it will be nice. Necrocapo.

Support

  1. Support I think I can add too many things.At least we can translate the other pages.Please define your opinion here. Necrocapo
  2. Support For sure --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Definitely Baristarim 05:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I am agree with you EAN 08:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --AlefZet 21:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Mskyrider 07:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --Turks are doing well with the Wikipediya and other sister projects, so this one wouldn't be an exception.
  8. Support (sorta). I feel it is a bit premature for this since all tr. projects are under developed atm but on the long run this should be fine. --Cat out 17:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Absar 11:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Czech Wikiversity

Diskuze k České wikiverzitě probíhá: zde.

Support

  1. Support --Juan de Vojnikov 12:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC) - Good project for the far future.[reply]
  2. Support Jedudedek 13:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Ragimiri@cswiki 15:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Alaiche 21:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Japo@cswiki, --Japo 15:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Martin Kozák 13:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC) — Good project for the near future, Juan.[reply]
  7. Support of course; samozřejmě Petr K 19:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --Mkoubik@cswiki 22:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support --Reaperman@cswiki 15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Not enough people at this stage, I suggest waiting a bit. — Timichal 08:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I would like to participate in both studying and teaching, but non-native Wikiversity language versions are useless for me.--Juan de Vojnikov 12:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Wikiversity

Support

  1. Support Adgjl 02:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Adgjl 08:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose


Wikiquote

Macedonian Wikiquote

Macedonian (македонски) is a rich language, and I personally think we deserve to have famous quotations translated in macedonian. Guitardemon666 19:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support --misos 20:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Комита 12:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Hattusili 09:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Bomac 19:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Sasa Stefanovic 20:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Jovanvb 20:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC) - becouse macedonian is only fruit :P[reply]
  7. Support --Belgian man (nl na en) 12:48, 2 November 2006 (UT

Support-becouse Macedonian Language is the best!!!

Oppose

Oppose Because Macedony is only fruit :O Anonymous users cannot vote. --misos 20:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Oppose As per above. :D --George D. Bozovic 16:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krav

I would like to propose a Krav Wikipedia.71.142.79.248 05:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Spoken by 2-8,000 people in Norway where it is a recognized minority language. i propose that :fkv be used as the langauge code. Unregistered user proposal. Should pend disposal Main Article:[reply]

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose until people willing to work on it are found because the proposer, who doesn't have an account on Meta like they should, seems to be proposing languages for the sake of it. Nikki 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Booksworm 14:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

(Eastern/Meadow)Mari

*I would like to propose a new Mari wikipedia this language has over 600,000 speakers! In: en:Russian Federation: autonomous republics en:Mari El, en:Bashkortostan, en:Tatarstan, en:Udmurtia; en:oblasti Nizhny Novgorod, en:Kirov, en:Sverdlovsk, en:Orenburg; en:Perm Krai the code should be :chm this language has an artile in over two dozen languages! i think it deserves it's own articles now! *Me gustaría proponer una nueva wikipedia de Mari éste idioma tiene más de 600.000 hablantes en es:Rusia y sus provinicas de es:Mari El, es:Bashkortostan, es:Tatarstan, es:Udmurtia,es:oblasti Nizhny Novgorod, es:Kirov, es:Sverdlovsk, es:Orenburg; es:Perm Krai y su código debería de ser :chm éste idioma tiene artículos sobre ello en más de dos dosenas de lenguajes ¡creo que ahora merece tener sus propios artículos! Undeclared user Booksworm 15:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already Mari language proposal on Former USSR subpage. V. Volkov / В. Волков (kneiphof) 14:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

articles/artículos

en zh tt sv fi sl se ko br ca cv de et eo fr ja nl nn pl ru

support

#Support 71.142.79.248 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Not a registered user Booksworm 15:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support Are you gonna work on both Meadow and Hill Mari Wikipedias? --Zabumon 22:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Rakuten06 23:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support V. Volkov / В. Волков (kneiphof) 14:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose

  1. Oppose until people willing to work on it are found because the proposer, who doesn't have an account on Meta like they should, seems to be proposing languages for the sake of it. Nikki 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neutral

(Western/Hill)Mari

*I would like to propose a new Mari wikipedia this language has over 600,000 speakers! In: en:Russian Federation: autonomous republics en:Mari El, en:Bashkortostan, en:Tatarstan, en:Udmurtia; en:oblasti Nizhny Novgorod, en:Kirov, en:Sverdlovsk, en:Orenburg; en:Perm Krai the code should be :wch this language has an artile in over two dozen languages! i think it deserves it's own articles now! *Me gustaría proponer una nueva wikipedia de Mari éste idioma tiene más de 600.000 hablantes en es:Rusia y sus provinicas de es:Mari El, es:Bashkortostan, es:Tatarstan, es:Udmurtia,es:oblasti Nizhny Novgorod, es:Kirov, es:Sverdlovsk, es:Orenburg; es:Perm Krai y su código debería de ser :chm éste idioma tiene artículos sobre ello en más de dos dosenas de lenguajes ¡creo que ahora merece tener sus propios artículos! Unregistered user or undeclared

There is already Mari language proposal on Former USSR subpage. V. Volkov / В. Волков (kneiphof) 14:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

articles/artículos

en zh tt sv fi sl se ko br ca cv de et eo fr ja nl nn pl ru

support

#Support71.142.79.248 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Unregistered user. 18:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  1. Support V. Volkov / В. Волков (kneiphof) 14:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose

  1. Oppose until people willing to work on it are found because the proposer, who doesn't have an account on Meta like they should, seems to be proposing languages for the sake of it. Nikki 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neutral

Meänkieli

:fiu spoken by 40 to 70,000 people in Sweden's Torne Valley where its a recognized minority language. I therefore propose that this be the newest wikipedia! Not a registered user Booksworm 15:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

support

#Support71.142.79.248 22:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Not a registered user Booksworm 15:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  1. Support: recognized minority language V. Volkov / В. Волков (kneiphof) 14:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose

  1. Oppose until people willing to work on it are found because the proposer, who doesn't have an account on Meta like they should, seems to be proposing languages for the sake of it. Nikki 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neutral

South Estonian

Is a regional language of Estonia also spoken in the Pskov and region of Russia it has 40,000 speakers and it should have a :fiu wikipedia! Not oficially recognized but The Center for South Estonian Language and Cultural Studies of Tartu University is a leading authority. Not a registered user Booksworm 15:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

support

#Support71.142.79.248 22:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Not a registered user Booksworm 15:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

oppose

  1. Oppose until people willing to work on it are found because the proposer, who doesn't have an account on Meta like they should, seems to be proposing languages for the sake of it. Nikki 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neutral

Julevsáme/Lule Sami

Has been standardised since 1983 and cultivated and has about 2,000 speakers in Sweden and Norway its code should be :smj and it should definatly have its own wikipedia. #3 on this map shows its range. en lule sami Not a registered user Booksworm 15:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

support

#Support71.142.79.248 Not a registered user Booksworm 15:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

oppose

  1. Oppose until people willing to work on it are found because the proposer, who doesn't have an account on Meta like they should, seems to be proposing languages for the sake of it. Nikki 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neutral

Huillice

Huillice (wee-yee-se' ) is a beautiful and ancient language of the Huilliche people of southern chile it is spoken by about 2,000 people in the 10th Region especially on Chiloé Island. Its code should be :sai and it should have its own wikipedia because in Wikipedia's quest for collecting all human knowledge differant languages are neccisary and this language will be great to have! For God's sake! Register you fool! Booksworm 15:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Support

*Support71.142.79.248 01:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Not a registered user Booksworm 15:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose until people willing to work on it are found because the proposer, who doesn't have an account on Meta like they should, seems to be proposing languages for the sake of it. Nikki 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Komi-Permyak

There should be a wikipedia in Komi-Permyak since it has 116.000 speakers and is an official langauge of Rissia in the autónomous region of Komi its code should be:koi Not a registered user Booksworm 16:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Support

#Support71.142.79.248 01:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Not a registered user Booksworm 16:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  1. Strong Support: it is official language of Komi-Permyak Okrug (alongside with Russian) V. Volkov / В. Волков (kneiphof) 14:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose until people willing to work on it are found because the proposer, who doesn't have an account on Meta like they should, seems to be proposing languages for the sake of it. Nikki 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Yukatek Maya

Yukatek Maya is an ancient language with more than 10.000 years of beautiful history it has more than 805,000 speakers in Guatemala and Belize where it has official standing its code should be :myn and it should have a wikipedia. Not a registered user Booksworm 16:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Support

#Support71.142.79.248 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Not a registered user Booksworm 16:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose until people willing to work on it are found because the proposer, who doesn't have an account on Meta like they should, seems to be proposing languages for the sake of it. Nikki 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Wastek

The wastek language is spoken by 66,000 Mexicans and should have its own (w:hus) wikipedia. It is also spelled Huastek. en:Wastek language Unregistered user Booksworm 16:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Support

#Support71.142.79.248 01:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose until people willing to work on it are found because the proposer, who doesn't have an account on Meta like they should, seems to be proposing languages for the sake of it. Nikki 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Uspantel

The wastek language is spoken by over 1,000 Guatemalans in the Quiché department its should be :usp en:Uspantel language Unregistered user Booksworm 16:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Support

#Support71.142.79.248 01:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Unregistered user Booksworm 16:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose until people willing to work on it are found because the proposer, who doesn't have an account on Meta like they should, seems to be proposing languages for the sake of it. Nikki 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Tz'utujil

Tz'utujil is spoken by over 50,000 Guatemalans and they should have a wikipedia (:tzj). Unregistered user Booksworm 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Support

#Support71.142.79.248 01:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Unregistered user Booksworm 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose until people willing to work on it are found because the proposer, who doesn't have an account on Meta like they should, seems to be proposing languages for the sake of it. Nikki 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

K'iche'

I think there should be a Kiche wikipedia since it has over ONE MILLION SPEAKERS! Central K'iche' should be used its code should be :quc. Unregistered user Booksworm 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Support

#Support71.142.79.248 02:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Unregistered user Booksworm 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose until people willing to work on it are found because the proposer, who doesn't have an account on Meta like they should, seems to be proposing languages for the sake of it. Nikki 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Rapa Nui

there are 4,650 Rapanui speakers and they need to have a w:rap for easter island in chile! Unregistered user Booksworm 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Support

#Support71.142.79.248 03:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Unregistered user Booksworm 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose until people willing to work on it are found because the proposer, who doesn't have an account on Meta like they should, seems to be proposing languages for the sake of it. Nikki 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Tzeltal

With over 200,000 speakers there should be a tzeltal :tzb wikipedia for this Mexican language spoken inc Chiapas. Unregistered user Booksworm 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Support

#Support71.142.79.248 03:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Unregistered user Booksworm 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose until people willing to work on it are found because the proposer, who doesn't have an account on Meta like they should, seems to be proposing languages for the sake of it. Nikki 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Sindhi WikiBooks

I would like to start Wikibooks in Sindhi. Sindhi Wiktionary, Sindhi Wikipedia, and Sindhi Wikinews already exist. Aursani 17:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sindhi WikiJunior

I would like to start WikiJunior in Sindhi. Sindhi Wiktionary, Sindhi Wikipedia, and Sindhi Wikinews already exist. There are more thatn 40000 Sindhi Medium Schools in Sindh alone. It is medium of instructions in educational insttitutes in Sindh and India. It is spoken by more than 35 million people Aursani 17:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary in Chilean Spanish

I would like to propose a wiktionary for the Chilean dialect of Spanish since it is a unique dialect with thousands of variations, vernaculars, terms, and words differant from standard spaniard argentine and mexican. For example:

  • Beans=Frijoles=Porotos
  • Bananas=Platanos=Bananas
  • Kitchentop=Estufa=Cosina
  • Heater=Calentór=Estufa
  • Corn=Maíz=Choclo
  • Private=Privado=Particular
  • Cherry=Ceresa=Güinda
  • Strawberry=Fresas=Frutillas

these are just a few see also en:Chilean Spanish for a more thoughough list, furthermore many words exist the same but with differant pronunciations.67.150.253.216 05:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

  1. Supportthis would be absolutly great! Ohe que buene onda que vaymos a tení un wictionario chilensi!Qrc2006 06:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Supportthis would be very useful71.142.79.248 00:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against

  1. Oppose Add those words to the Spanish Wiktionary. Spanish is not the only polycentric language. American and Britain English can also coexist in one Wiktionary. --::Slomox:: >< 14:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages&oldid=474152"