Jump to content

Requests for new languages: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m - pointer Rotas
No edit summary
Line 682: Line 682:
P.S.
P.S.
Please, add me as a contributor. I'm prepare to write regularly to Siberian Wikipedia. - [[User: Steel archer]]
Please, add me as a contributor. I'm prepare to write regularly to Siberian Wikipedia. - [[User: Steel archer]]

*'''Support''' - --[[User:Kivan|Kivan]] 17:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Siberian is language of my ancestors, i wish to restore it and i want that it had the free reference in territory of Siberia. Or we should drown moscovites in blood. Thanks

Revision as of 17:36, 1 June 2006

Projects

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

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

Procedure

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

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

The IANA coce is obsolete; all SIL codes are part of ISO-639-3

  • 2. How do I know if my language is sufficiently different from a language that already has a wiki?
This is an issue that is decided by consensus.
  • 3. Can there be wikis in ancient languages?
Yes. There are already wikis available in Latin, Old English, Gothic and Pali.
Please add new requests for wikis in ancient languages to Requests for new languages/Ancient.
  • 4. Can there be wikis in artificial languages?
Yes. There are already wikis available in Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, Lojban , Volapük. There used to be a Toki Pona wiki, but it was decided that the Toki Pona language was not used widely enough to support a wiki.
However, it is quite possible that a fictional language will get little favor. Many considered the existence of the Klingon Wikipedia to be unacceptable, and a proposal to shut it down eventually succeeded (See also Talk page).
Please place all new requests for Wikipedias in artificial languages at Requests for new languages/Non-natural.
  • 5. How many speakers are necessary?
No language has ever been refused solely because of an insufficient number of speakers. For natural languages, this will probably never be an issue; for artificial languages, however, a low number of speakers may be taken as evidence that the language is not widely spoken enough to deserve a wiki.
The actual number of users who know the language and work on the wiki is an important issue, but it is not known how many are necessary for a wiki to gain momentum and solid growth. The dedication of the users may be more important than the number, since a few devoted users may write more, and higher quality, articles than a larger number of casual users.

Template

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

{{{User accounts of others}}}

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

Approved

  1. Nepal Bhasa / Newari
  2. Mazandarani
  3. Lak
  4. Emilian-Romagnol
  5. Buryat
  6. Upper Sorbian
  7. Wu
  8. Novial
  9. Pangasinan
  10. Bavarian

(more details see Approved requests for new languages)

...but in need of native contributors

  1. Ainu
  2. Balinese
  3. Bishnupriya Manipuri
  4. Coptic
  5. Gayo
  6. Kabyle
  7. Karelian
  8. Kinaray-a
  9. Kiribati
  10. Ladin
  11. Madurese
  12. Maliseet-Passamaquoddy
  13. Manchu
  14. Mapudungun
  15. North Frisian
  16. Saterlandic
  17. Sranang Tongo

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

Moved requests

Discussion ongoing

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

Zeelandic Wikipedia

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

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

The requested project was created at zea: at an indeterminate date. Note that this request was approved before the implementation of the standardised Language proposal policy, and should not be used as a model for future requests. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Zeelandic (Zeêuws, zea ISO 639-3)
  • Editing community: Caesarion (P), Node ue
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: —
  • External links:
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Relevant info
    • App. number of speakers: 250.000
    • Locations spoken: Roughly the Zeeland province of the Netherlands, and the former island of Goeree-Overflakkee. Depends on the defintion.
    • Closely related languages: Dutch proper, Hollandic dialect, West Flemish. Some include Zealandic in the latter. Anyway Zealandic transites into both West Flemish and Hollandic by means of a dialect continuum.
  • Comments:
    • Some Dutch nationalists say Zealandic is a dialect of Dutch. Caesarion 07:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't really, but if people show their interest I will be willing to do a lot of work for it. Caesarion 07:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Do you speak Zeêuws, Caesarion? If you do, I hope you will create a Test Wikipedia immediately and we might search for support from others. If you don't, I think we should wait for some people who do. --Node ue
      • Yes Node, I can speak Zeêuws and since my parents live in Zeeland I will probably find some native speakers willing to contribute. I know of no current Wikipedians who speak it however; some might prefer a combined Zeelandic-West Flemish Wikipedia. Caesarion 19:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • De Test-Wikipedia, of iets wat-a d'rop trekt, staet ier.
    • Oppose - Not standard spelling, a lot of regional variation in the small territory where it is spoken. No literature history. The few texts in Zealandic on the internet are basically Dutch with modified spelling to make it sound more Zealandic. Too little for a succesfull Wikipedia, and unnecessary, since since most people in Zealand are perfectly happy with standard Dutch. DanielM 07:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Daniel, there are a lot of points I must disagree on with you. First of all: there a two widely accepted spellings: the dictionary-orthography and the Noe-orthography, and the mutual differences are so small that I hardly expect any problems. The regional variation is often vastly exaggerated by the native speakers; on the contrary, most of Zeeland is remarkably cohaerent in a linguistic point of view (except for Zeeuws-Vlaanderen); much more so than North Holland, Groningen and Drenthe, not to mention Limburg. And that there is hardly any literature may not bar the creation of a Wikipedia. This is the classical chicken-and-egg-theorema: somewhere the tradition of writing Zealandic or any language has to start. Finally, I don't think most Zeelandic speakers are perfectly happy with Dutch: they might be content, but one has to stay content until a more satisfying offer is made. It is always beneficial when you can read and write your own language, for Zeêuwen not less so than for anyone else. Caesarion 17:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there is no literature, it either means the language has been opressed, or it is just silly to write literature in it, because it might just be a simple dialect that doesn't differ significantly from the cultural language. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to start a new language, and especially not to turn dialects into a language. Read this [1] why turning dialects into a language is a bad idea (also, check out the page "taalafstand" there), and this one [2] why Zealandic is not considered a language. DanielM 18:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to doubt my seriousness and to think I am absolutely ignorant about Zealandic! Man, I red quite a lot about the pros and contras of recognising Zealandic. And your remark about literature is just too stupid for words! In a way, Zealandic is oppressed, Standard Dutch being taught in schools exclusively and being the only accepted language in any official situation! Why don't you just grant 250,000 people their own Wikipedia? And tell me, was it silly to turn the low German dialects of the Netherlands into a language, namely Dutch? I can come up with dozens of internet publications that claim the contrary, but you only come up with what agrees with your point of view! Caesarion 22:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's take a look at your example Wikipedia:
        • "Jaet, j'eit 't goed gezieë, ier oort 'n afdeêlienge van Wikipedia, de vrieë encyclopedie die iedereêne kan bewarke, in 't Zeêuws opgezet.
        • Equivalent standard Dutch:
        • Ja, je hebt 't goed gezien, hier hoort 'n afdeling van Wikipedia, de vrije encyclopedie die iedereen kan bewerken, in 't Zeeuws opgezet.
        • Some of the differences we see:
          • The h is not pronounced, so removed in Zeeuws. Removal of letters is common in dialects, however, I'm not aware of another dialect that does this.
          • The ij is pronounced as ie and therefore written that way. This happens in many Dutch dialects.
          • One word(combination) that looks a bit more different, j'eit, but it is clear that this is close to "je het", which happens in more Dutch dialects.
        • We do not see any differences in grammar, and the words are standard Dutch.
        • Now German, likely far from perfect, because my German is terrible:
          • 'Ja, du hast es richtig gesehen, hier gehört eine Abteilung von Wikipedia, der freien Enzyclopädie, die jeder bearbeiten kann, in Zeeuws vorbereitet.
        • Apart from changes that reflect different pronounciation, it's clear that many words are completely different, i.e. je<->du het<->es werk<->arbeit opzetten<->vorbereiten. This example ignores the differences between German grammar and Dutch grammar, especially declensions can cause big differences in the way sentences are constructed in both languages.
        • You get similar effects if you would translate into Friesian. These things are why the case for a Zealandic language is rather weak.
        • Lastly, I think I did not deserve a personal attack. If you want to go ahead you'd better explain what direction you want to go, why, or if, Zealandic should be treated different from other dialects in Holland, like Haags and Amsterdams, and dialects in other countries. DanielM 11:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Come on now, Zeelandic is quite a lot further apart from Standard Dutch than the The Hague and Amsterdam dialects are. These are nearly identical with it! Your comparision with German is quite misleading. There are so many Wikipedias in language variants that are much closer to each other than Dutch and German are... And why do you actually oppose a Zealandic Wikipedia and support one in Gronings and leave the possibility for a Stellingverwish one open? Stellingwervish is as close to Dutch as Zealandic is (Jae, ie hebt 't goed ezien, hier wodt ne afdieling ...), and what is more important: on the to-be-created Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia, you are perfectly allowed to write in Stellingwervish, while on the Dutch Wikipedia any other variant than Standard Dutch is forbidden. That is a very strong argument pro, IMO. The others are that it is fairly different from Dutch proper (in sharp contrast to the South Hollandic dialects you mentioned) and also quite coherent, though of course there are differences between the respective speeches of each region. Will you still oppose this project when I find enough willing native speakers? And if so, why not create a unified Zealandic-West-Flemish Wikipedia? Finally, I think your use of the word silly and your reference to a source as if it were the unmistakable truth should be taken as a personal attack, too. Caesarion 12:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Haags and Amsterdam are *not* equal to standard Dutch, far from it. You are mistaken by that the majority of people in these cities do talk almost perfect standard Dutch, the dialects are almost extinct but still spoken by older people, please search some text in them on Google, and check yourself.
            • I'm going to stop this discussion, if citing sources is a personal attack, a proper discussion is not possible. I'd say its a good thing if you want to group several dialects in their own Wikipedia. DanielM 17:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe I must explain it to you: Haags and Amsterdams are Hollandic dialects, that differ only in accent and in some minor, very minor lexical features. I don't need to google it up, I know enough about it. The differences between Amsterdam dialect and Standard Dutch are similar to those between rural Texan and Standard English. Standard Dutch is based on the south Hollandic dialects, so it is satisfying for all those who speak these dialects. Not so for Zealandic: They have played no role in the formation of the Dutch language and are as a result further removed from Dutch. Don't forget I started the articles nl:Zeeuws, nl:Rotterdams, nl:Haags and nl:Amsterdams on the Dutch Wikipedia. So don't say I should google up some information because I'm just ignorant about the whole thing. Caesarion 21:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Would be willing to do some work to get this wikipedia going. I don't speak Zeêuws, but reading is no problem. Cicero 22:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a native speaker of Nieuw-Zeêuws, I strongly support having a Zeêuws wikipedia. May the yoke of oppression be lifted and the banner of vrijheid be raised in Zeeland! --Chamdarae 02:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that Chamdarae is the only native speaker supporting here, but I get the following that others may be despite not indicating that. Is anyone else a native speaker? Tuf-Kat 05:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't speak Zealandic - the link is to New Zealand English. Caesarion is the only speaker here, and he's not a native speaker, although there are other people who could help set it up. (And sorry if there was any misunderstanding.) --218.220.35.1 13:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)(Chamdarae)[reply]
  • Oppose because it a dialect Raetius 13:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC) -- vote invalid, see DIQ[reply]
    • Raetius, are you gonna tell us what you know about linguistics? Or about regional languages in the Netherlands? I simply reject any such oppose where someone calls a variety simply a dialect without clarifying his/her opinion. Caesarion Velim, non opto 09:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the Dutch government hasn't recognised it as an official language it gets my support because I think it's a good idea for a new wiki! Servien 10:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can speak Dutch quite well, and by visiting [3] I've discovered that the difference between standard Dutch and Zealandic is big enough. I can understand Zealandic (but it isn't easy). In fact, I can understand Afrikaans more easy than Zealandic, and Afrikaans is a language, not a dialect. So I fully support craetion of a Zealandic wikipedia. Kneiphof 11:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ~ I lived in Belgium for a year, most of it in Antwerpen and Gent; the written Zeelandic sounds very much like the very nearby Antwaarps. (Zeeland is just down the river from Antwerp and just on the other side of the national border from Antwerp province.) The West Flemish they speak in Gent is more different from Zealandic or Antwaarpse than either is from each other, so I don't think it would be logical to go for "a unified Zealandic-West-Flemish Wikipedia". I studied the language in Algemene Nederlands form from people who had lived in the Netherlands before going there, so that's what I started out speaking. But, I spent six months in Antwerp (in the Antwerp centrum and later in Borgherhout) and picked up enough spoken Antwaarps that it would not be difficult for me to pick up the spelling standards and contribute. Would it be accurate to label it a Zeeuwse-Antwaarpse Wikipedia?
~ Reaverdrop 10:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Silesian Wikipedia

submitted verification final decision
This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 22:02:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Number of speakers: 483,000
    (? is it really countable ? Also large amounts of native speakers consider it as a dialect of Polish not seperate language D_T_G 16:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Locations spoken: South Poland: Silesian Voivodeship, Opole Voivodeship; neighbouring areas of the Czech Republic (so called "Zaolzie" - a part of Cieszyn Silesia), but Cieszyn Silesian considered to be too different to be in the same wiki

Summary

Support:

  1. Bartek m0 (proposer)
  2. stAn N
  3. Przykuta N
  4. Drozdp N
  5. Nowis N
  6. kirq N
  7. Jaborygyn N
  8. Hermann N
  9. Pimke N
  10. Adrianer N
  11. Szoltys1990 N I agree with Artur and Tristan (Szoltys1990 at pl-wiki)
  12. Kamilus Silesius N
  13. Buzkid
  14. Hégésippe Cormier
  15. Ausir
  16. Taw
  17. TOR
  18. Datrio
  19. Adziura
  20. J"E"D (Ency)
  21. WarX
  22. Polimerek
  23. Caesarion
  24. Critto (Critto at pl-wiki)
  25. Eteru I'm not an Upper-Silesian native speaker. Neither, I consider it a separate language, but I do support the efforts to preserve and promote own culture.
  26. ABach
  27. Excumbed (Excumbed at pl-wiki)
    Wisnia13 - There is no such Wikipedian neither pl-wiki or en-wiki, only at meta (two edits). I moved it to not logged-in votes D T G 15:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Kroton (Kroton at pl-wiki)
  29. Slawojar
  30. Edi1123
  31. Filemon
  32. MatthiasGor
  33. Endriuj (Endriuj at pl-wiki)
  34. Antares
    Michał
  35. Uncle Davey
  36. IJzeren Jan
  37. Kajo
  38. Melancholie
  39. Tuvok
  40. Pojdulos
  41. Dobromila
  42. Brosen
  43. Mix321
  44. ToAr
  45. Kondzio199011:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  46. Marcimon
  47. Radegast89
  48. Bartekbas
  49. Xabi (Xabi at pl-wiki)
  50. Halibutt (native speaker of Polish, basic Silesian)
  51. nl:Gebruiker:Boudewijn Idema
  52. SupportSroulik 16:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support--Vladyslav Savelo 00:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Jeffrey Garland 14:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC) . Language (I learnt from polish site) is normalised and codificated. That's why I support it.[reply]

Oppose:

  1. Jörg Knappen (not enough supporters at the time of the vote)
  2. Borkowicz (because all Silesians know Polish anyway)
  3. Wanted (most Silesians use Polish as their primary language, no standardized spelling)
  4. Radomil (Polish speaker, Poznań dialect) not separate language, only dialect of Polish, no standardized spelling
  5. Arbeo
  6. Kpjas
  7. Panther
  8. Gdarin | talk
  9. Molobo (Molobo at en-wiki)
  10. Herr Kriss (explaination in comments section) N
  11. Chepry it's not a real language, actually it's not even a dialect
  12. tsca ✉ - this really should be a Wiktionary; the supporters are discussing the vocabulary and spelling
  13. Toudi
  14. Tompot (Tompot at pl-wiki) (Silesian is not a language it's dialect with a lot affiliations with [[4]])
    I would say Czech language had bigger influence ;P D T G 15:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Raetius - Oppose - (see other comments) similiar as user- Wisnia13
  15. Sobol dajcie ludzie luz. Jak bedzie coś takiego wyglądać: Jo je ślonzyok i je ja hop N
  16. LUCPOL 10:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Byda za, jeśli to bydzie śląsko wikipedia, a nie jakaś tam górnośląsko...[reply]
  17. Darwinek it's not a real language, actually it's not even a dialect
  18. D_T_G N I made my mind. Actually I oppose creating Silesian Wikipedia in such weird way, see comments section.
  19. Michał - very different from Polish, but it's still a dialect, not as Kashubian, which has its own traditions, poems, literature etc.
  20. Botev no standarized spelling, see discussion below
  21. No standard spelling, linguists divided over whether it's a language at all, and even if it is, it will never grow to any reasonable size anyway. +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Kolanin 21:02, 19 June 2006 (CEST)
  23. Angr 11:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC): spoken dialect only, no literary tradition, no ISO-639 code[reply]
  24. Paelius 09:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Szwedzki 13:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC). No standardized spelling, still a dialect.[reply]
  26. Radekk no ISO-639 code
  27. Egon 07:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Jeroenvrp 13:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC) - This is a dialect of Polish.[reply]
  29. Test wikipedia is dead -- Raghav 14:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

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

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

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

    • Please do not treat all Silesians from different regions like Cieszyn Silesians and Upper Silesians like they were the same. If you know Polish read here:
      Górny Śląsk nie jest jednolity narodowościowo, kulturalnie, a nawet różni go mentalność ludzka w różnych jego rejonach. Oto przedstawienie głównych podziałów ziemi górnośląskiej.
      And:
      Śląsk Cieszyński zamieszkują głównie Polacy wyznania ewangelicko-augsburskiego (...) It's an little untrue, cause here live a lot of katolics who are also Poles. (...)Potocznie mieszkańcy to tzw. cieszynioki czy cesaroki. Choć ziemie te, podobnie jak Opolszczyzna, mogą się nazywać górnośląskimi - to jednak w większości mieszkańcy tego nie chcą.
      It's true, for example I'm from Cieszyn Silesia am protestant and believe me: if someone would called me "Upper Silesian" or "Chanys" he would got me mad, we really really really fill different from Upper Silesians, and we have many many places like simple net forums to talk about our matter in our "language", if Wikipedia would be written in both Silesian dialects it would be really freak, cause our dialects differences are really big, we have been in two different countries, they in Prussia, we in Habsburgs' Imperium, those two hundred years influenced much on our dialects, see that these project has been renamed to Upper Silesian, and although Cieszyn Silesia is historically a part of Upper Silesia we will always underline that we are not Upper Silesians. BTW, I have hear it first time about bigger difference between pure Polish and Silesian than Kashubian and pure Polish, I speak in Cieszyn Silesian and have heard Kashubian, and would never say what you have just said :P Have you ever heard Cieszyn Silesian Dialect? D_T_G 17:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose No rules for the dialect as it varies from city to city. No common standard. Very limited use (the number of users is probabably a lot smaller then put) --Molobo 14:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To everyone who objects on the grounds that it's just not a language - many regional dialects of other languages already have their Wikipedias as well. As for those who say it's not even a dialect but merely a slang, Rada Języka Polskiego (the Polish Language Council) disagrees, as it (and other institutions) calls it a dialect numerous times. Ausir 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm native speaker, but there is a fact you cant deny - silesian isn't standardized yet, there are many 'schools' of writting in silesian, i think that first ppl must know how to write in silesian, cause otherwise silesian wiki would be a tower of babel. Also like Molobo said - there are many kinds of silesian, so which kind of silesian is the correct one? When there will be one way of writting silesian words and you will choose one kind of silesian as an official silesian wiki language i will support this idea, but i don't this that it's possible right now. Herr Kriss
    • Really small support. I'm Cieszyn Silesian native speaker, I was, am and always be afraid of making one standard of Silesian language. Firstly it will be very artificial, moreover it will be deffinitely closer to Upper Silesian not Cieszyn Silesian, and we will never support it. D_T_G 12:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion got long so I will repeat it to make it clear: Upper Silesian Wiki would be a fun but it's difficult to make it useful rather than destructive.
    • Firstly, call it Upper Silesian - other parts of Silesia speak different languages (Lower uses pure Polish with a smaller addition of regionalisms than any other region of Poland!).
      • There is one problem, Silesian people which are using dialect, wouldn’t call themselves Upper Silesians only Silesians (Ślonzocy), so “Upper Silesian Wikipedia” would be incorrect, there is no such word in dialect like “Upper Silesian”. Correctly would be in “Ślonsko” in addition “Ślonsko” isn’t “Śląska” or “Stela”. --Nowis 23:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Firstly stela means "from hear" - I would never called any Wikipedia in such way. Secondly not all ethnic Silesians would call themselves "Ślonzok", in Cieszyn Silesia they would call themselves Cieszyniok and Ślónzok (read Shlunzok not Shlonzok). And some Upper Silesians would call themselves "Upper Silesian" - "Górnoślonzok" in Opole Silesia :) D_T_G 20:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Secondly, call it dialect, as it's not a language.
    • Then, try to standarize it and make sure you don't create a new dialect/language. Don't do it jut by yourselves.
    • And finally, make sure it is not a tool in hands of the few frustrated politicians who will show up and try to become famous playing the card of "national Wikipedia", cultural proof etc. It is not and it shouldn't be although if it would help to preserve this culture, all at least its remainings for future generations and teach other people about it, I would be very happy with that. Greets and good luck! aegis maelstrom δ 03:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Silesian has no one standard, as it is really a dialect continuum. But so are Alemannisch and Low German, which both have quite succesful Wikipedias despite the differences in different versions of the dialects. There is no one standard for writing Silesian, but some books and other texts in Silesian exist, which can be used as models. Ausir 18:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tere are also many books in Poznań dialect, wich is much more homogenic (due to smaller area of usage). "Silesian" is in fact a group of dialects, without any standarisation. Wikipedia is not place to find it, according to no orginal reserch rule. Radomil 22:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Silesian" is in fact a group of dialects, without any standarisation. Wikipedia is not place to find it, according to no orginal reserch rule. Radomil 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Silesian is a dialect continuum, but so are Alemannisch and Low German which already have their Wikipedias. Ausir 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The arguments: language, no language, dialect, not standardized etc. are irrelevant, just look at Alemannisch. I think Silesian does have the necessary speaker base who would be able to create a decent Wikipedia. However, I don't understand why the Silesian speakers are experimenting on the Polish wiki instead of creating a test-wiki on Meta, as it is usually the case. The choice of a spelling system for the Silesian wiki is none of my business, but realistically, I don't think that the spelling proposed on pl:Górnośląska wikipedia will be a huge success. It just seems way too weird. Please have a look at Mr. Grzegorz Wieczorek's proposal. The author seems very competent, why don't you guys invite him to cooperate? Tuvok 23:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to remind that Lacky janzyk (spelling Latsky language) promoted by Ondra Łysohory is commonly considered as a Czech dialect, although Ondra Łysohory - who has been writing poetry in that language was calling himself a Silesian. D_T_G 16:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would forgot to remind that large numbers of native speakers consider that spoke (Silesian) as a dialect of Polish language, only about 50 000 declared their language as "Silesian language", even 120 000 of 170 000 people who declared a Silesian nationality declared their mother tongue as a Polish language. Many of them looks at the actuall efforts of codification (this codificated writing will be most propably used at Silesian/Upper Silesian Wikipedia) as a effort of "creating new language" and purposeful distinction from Polish language. D_T_G 20:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So actually I oppose its creating. I'm afraid of really weird spelling (as also noticed Tuvok) made in order to POV-pushing that it is a distinct language. In my opinion the proposed Silesian Wikipedia should be made for all Silesians and writing must be a consensus between Silesians who consider Silesian as a seperate language and as only a dialect of Polish (which are in majority). D_T_G 22:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose as long as we don't agree on which spelling standard is going to be used. Only under the condition that such standard is picked up AND the Wikipedia is called Upper Silesian I shall vote in favour of its creation. For the time being I am against. Botev
    Yes but the name of Wikipedia wouldn't be written in polish "Śląska" or english "Silesian", but in Silesian dialect Ślůnsko or Ślojnsko. This make a difference.--Nowis 20:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nl:Gebruiker:Boudewijn Idema, 14:11, 1 September 2006

West-palesian (5 support, 9 oppose)

Template:New-language-template

Comments.

The discussion have just begun. trasianka editor 20:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. trasianka editor 20:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me, for example. And others from Brest, Kobrin, Pinsk and other places. trasianka editor 20:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose as I said in Trasianka proposal... First develope be-wiki for some quite good quality level than you may think about my support for sub-projects :) And thanks for this ;) D_T_G 19:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, we are not talking about the sub-project, but deffinitly the real project. We are not 'staying in the queue after belarusian', but besides. trasianka editor 20:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right I always considered dialect wikipedias as a sub-project, very closely related to sup-projcts. However I continue my opposition until I will know if there are a native speaker willing to contribute and if the writting/spelling is clear for them. D_T_G 11:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, explain your position. trasianka editor 20:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definately Support. --Czalex 20:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I doubt in enough number of contributors. --EugeneZelenko 14:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I'd love to see this become a success, but the number of editors is indeed a worrying thing. --IJzeren Jan 14:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE. I'm dealing with the Belarusian language for many years as an amateur linguist, and I can attest that there's virtually no written texts in "West-Polessian". They are non-existent. And throughout all these years I have never met a single person who can write in "West-Polessian". It's a spoken transitional dialect between Ukraine and Belarus, or some linguists consider it a separate language (a local microlanguage), but there's virtually nothing in written form. I wonder if the proposer could show us his own writings in this "West-Polessian" language and show us Web pages in "West-Polessian" (can you provide at least 10 links to Web sites that are actually written in that language? Thank you). --Br23net 14:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose --Dezidor 07:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tarantino (9 support, 3 oppose)

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

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

Support nl:Boudewijn Idema, 13:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Just one doubt, which may be meaningless (I really cannot judge myself): cannot you guys unite all the apulian languages into a basic koiné? I mean, this obviously would not include the albanian and greek minorities, but maybe would give you more users, readers and writers. Think about it. Making a wikipedia is a LOT of work bertodsera March 21, 2006 18:12
retiring my doubt after getting a bit of further info. Tarendine appears as a neo-sannitic language, and obviously cannot be grouped with its neighbours. Wish you good luck, guys! bertodsera March 25, 2006 12:12 (GMT+2)
  • Weak support Note that you cannot group all varieties of Apulia as a single language. The southern ones (Salento) belong to the Sicilian group, the northern ones belong to the Neapolitan group. It turns out that Taranto lies right on the isogloss between them, which is fairly sharp; hence Tarandine is a transition language, which does not typify the linguistic situation of Apulia as a whole. Speakhits 11:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but I must oppose this one. Not even SIL who assign the title "language" very generously consider this a distinct idiom. Arbeo 18:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I entirely disagree about SIL. They refuse to recognize the langues d'oïl (including Norman) as different languages from French, despite the fact that Jersey Norman (Jèrriais), at least, is a) politically separate from French, b) not mutually intercomprehensible with French, c) a recognized regional language by the British-Irish Council, and d) has a standardized orthography, literary tradition (dating back 800 years), and distinct regional dialects. The language is currently being taught in schools (as a separate language from French), and a GCSE in the language should appear shortly. Dictionaries exist between Jèrriais and English and Jèrriais and French. (And, furthermore, Jersey has its own regional version of French, which is not Jèrriais). Seeing as they, despite all this, do not recognize Jèrriais (or Norman in general) as a separate language, you can thus hardly say that SIL is "very generous". However, I'm neutral about a Tarantino Wikipedia—I think we'd need to see a very successful test-wiki before considering it. The Jade Knight 21:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose I'm italian with strong knowledge in linguistic science and I have never been informed about this languages. In Italy there are some differences in the same dialects in several towns, but these are minor differences. Tarantino is only a variation in a bigger dialect which is "pugliese". --Ilario 09:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well Ilario, if you have never been informed about tha tarantinian language and the linguistic apulian situation, you're showing you haven't this "strong knowledge"... Read about this dialect a little bit more and then explain us (with real linguistic motivations) why it cannot be considered a separate idiom. Beren85 20.13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Different enough to be considered a separate language. --Wodan 11.46, 14 April 2006

Obviously it can be made much better. ;-) Beren85 21.00, 15, April 2006 (UTC)

  • Mild support - it's true that it's hard to tell this language from any other of the 100+ dialects spoken in Italy, but if a sufficient number of speakers exists and they have the will to start the project and the perseverance to make it grow, they will get their right to exist "on the battlefield". --Paginazero 19:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pfälzisch (8 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral)

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

  • Support - Belgian man (nl na en) 13:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Caesarion Dear anonymous user, did you post a message about this at de:Wikipedia:Fragen zur Wikipedia? 13:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Come on. There is a Ripuarian Wikipedia, so why not a Palation one??? --Abzt 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, because I would like to get more information. But I've added the template above and the links to articles about the language, where there was only a poor paragraph to request. German users are the key for this request. I hope they will have some interest for it, and find enough native or advanced users to help it. :o) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • moderate Support. I love the language, several near to me use it every day. I cannot support it as an author because I'm not in sufficient command of the language. Hint: Approved_requests_for_new_languages has a section titled Pennsylvania German which is a closely related yet distinct language. Purodha Blissenbach 01:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Who on earth would benefit from a Wikipedia in this German dialect? Not a single person because _every_ single speaker knows High German just as well or better. I don't live there but I bet when they write something down they write it down not in dialect but in High German like just everybody else in German. High German has specialised terms for all fields of science, the dialects mostly don't. The High German wikipedia will always be a source of information many times bigger and better then the Pfälzisch one - so the Pfälzisch one will actually be useless. I could go on with a few more points but I think it's enough now. -- Raetius 11:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have had some very similar discussions before: Pfälzisch should be considered a seperate language - and would, if the concepts of Germany, Germans and "the" German language didn't exist. Caesarion 13:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 specifing mispronouncing of a German province. Moreover, where should this trend to create new splitted WPs lead? 84.163.38.161 21:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC) non-argument, should not be taken seriously[reply]
    • Sorry, but if still have the dumb conviction that regioanl languages are "mispronunciations" of standard languages, you have absolutely NO business here!!! Dialects are older, much, much older, than standard languages, start reading at least something about West Germanic dialects before you ever do one edit to this page again! Caesarion 23:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as it was said, no one there would write down something in that dialect. The only German Dialects which are sometimes used as a written language are (AFAIK) Lower German and Swiss German, which both have already a Wikipedia. Everyone who speaks/understands Pfälzisch can also understand High German and get information at de:. That Pfälzisch Wikipedia would only be a copy of some easy "translated" de: articles to have many language links in the articles in High German. --Steffen Löwe Gera 09:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it wouldn't. Any new Wikipedia is created of its own. The Limburgic Wikipedia is not just an easy translation of the Dutch Wikipedia, neither are the Platt and Alemannic Wikipedias, even though they all know German and write it with more ease than their own vernacular language. Any natural language (and Pfälzisch is a language of its own indeed!) deserves to be written down and cultivated, no matter whether it suffers low prestige or the presence of a standard language. The only thing we should be worried about is whether there are contributors for it, or perhaps if the proposed Wikipedia will not be redundant with an existing project. Caesarion 09:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      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]
  • Oppose. No need for this. It's not Wikipedia's business to cultivate languages. All Pfälzisch speakers benefit from the German Wikipedia just as much as all the other German speakers do. That should suffice. – Jondor 13:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be WP's business to cultivate languages, but it certainly is Wikipedia's business to help out those who cultivate their languages and give them the opportunity to make their own Wikipedia. Mr. Jondor, all Catalan speakers can use the Spanish Wikipedia very well, but the Catalan Wikipedia was created on the very same day as the Spanish was. So not allowing certain languages their own Wikipedias goes counter to the policy Wikipedia has been leading for five years now. Caesarion 13:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • SupportI am a native speaker of Palatian, and would help with a palatian Wiki, whether it exists. If the alemannic wikipedia has a "right to exist", I would say a Palatian would have it, too. I would also propose another language code. PAL would be more apposite than PFL. If you aquate the "ä" with the "a", PAL would be the first three letters of te language name in English (Palatinate), and in Palatian itself (Pälzisch). PaelzerBu 13:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just changed the title, cause I had counted six supports, and not just five ;-) --de:Benutzer:SPS 13.02.2006 12:46 (CET)
  • Oppose - Pfälzisch is German. There is one common standard for writing German that covers all regional spoken variants. No other standard than Hochdeutsch is ever used in non-fictional texts (for good reasons, I guess). Ignoring this fact and trying to create Wikipedias for all different spoken "Germans" will very probably lead to a plethora of incomplete, unreliable wikis of inferior quality forever redundant with the mutually intelligible, first-rate standard German WP. Nichts gegen Lokalpatriotismus - but I'd strongly disencourage such a development. Arbeo 17:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose NO NO NO! See Arbeo - what next Berlinerisch? Where the End, if an 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]
Title actualized once again --de:Benutzer:SPS 22:20, 10 April 2006 (CEST)
  • 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

Rarotongan (2 support, 1 oppose)

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

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

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

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

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

There is no intelligibility with tahitian and New Zealand Maori

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

fr:Utilisateur:Nevers

  • Oppose - not still a dialect-Wiki more, spoken by 43.000 (!!! - wow... /:) native speakers. Who should write there? Kenwilliams 19:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend reading all the comments before voting if you don't know anything about the topic. As stated several times above, this is an entirely separate language from Maori in New Zealand, and from other Polynesian languages. The name "Cook Islands Maori" is widely used in part because traditionally there was no name covering all the languages (and dialects) spoken in the Cook Islands, and excluding those spoken in other countries. --Chamdarae 18:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Chamdarae, just ignore it. Ken clearly thinks he is omniscient in the area of languages, and that languages that are not oficially recognised don't exist. Or don't you? You seem to think so. Tell me, do you really think there are only 200 languages in the world rather than the 6,000 Ethnologue lists? Tell me, have you ever red one word in or on the Pacific languages? Caesarion 09:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nl:Boudewijn Idema, 13:52 , 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Is a official language, and maybe use the Kopapa Reo standard for the Wiki.--Taichi - (あ！) 20:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Azerbaijan Wikipedia

submitted verification final decision
This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 02:03:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: "South Azerbaijan"! (آذری, azb ISO 639-3)
  • Editing community: BayBak (P)
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: —
  • External links:
  • Ethnologue entry
  • baybak.com
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Number of speakers: About 50,000,000 in total. 40.000.000 South Azerbaijan (East and West Azerbaijan - Iran, Erdebil, Astara, Enzeli, Urmieh, Zenjan, Hemedan, Tehran, Merkezi and all nearby cities), 8,000,000 in Republic of Azerbaijan (useing different script), and few in neighbouring countries/abroad.
  • Locations spoken: South Azerbaijan, Republic of Azerbaijan, Turkey, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Syria
  • Related languages: Turkic languages
If the South Azerbaijan use only arabic script, maybe use both scripts, as the Ladino Wikipedia.--Taichi - (あ！) 05:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with the opposer Taichi.
  • This is the language of the people who have a very long history of civilisation and saing that it is a dialect (from what?) is funny (or even silly) we are not talking about political references (not strong enough to be argued) this is the language of 40,000,000 people who are living in this real world (if not say how). This is not about me or your wishes or hopes.
  • User:BayBak somewhat clarifies the situation on his userpage: he wants to start an Azeri Wikipedia in Arabic script. Due to the shorthand-like nature of the Arabic script, it is impossible to write mutual script convertors for Latin script and Arabic script Azeri, so a seperate Wikipedia does make sense. However, I want to see some more native speakers supporting this initiative before I give my support. Caesarion 13:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is less to do with dialect and more to do with alphabet
  • 2 Support - I have heard that the differences are stronger than only a alphabet, South Azerbaijan has many words from arabic or persian language. D_T_G 19:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 Support Azeri in Iran is now quite different from that spoken in the Republic of Azerbaijan - the difference is more than just a difference in script. The official ISO code is azb. --Chamdarae 18:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral simply because I do not know how different this is from Azerbaijan. However, if integrating two scripts into one Wikipedia (as done in Romani and Ladino) is possible, I would prefer it. The Jade Knight 09:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 5 Support I support this approach. If research came up with too broad a lingustic divide, or that a dual scripted wiki would technically not be feasible for the next years, then I support creating a separate one. -- Purodha Blissenbach 11:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 Oppose Oppose Initially I thought of technical difficulties involving the set up of bi-alphabet Wikipedia, but I am convinced that the creation of a new Wikipedia just because of different script does not serve any purpose. Kurdish Wikipedia has already made use of Arabic and Latin scripts for three different Kurdish accents.
The Kurdish wikipedia is actually the Kurmanji language. I understand that the conversion from Latin to Arab scripts is not as easy as we are led to believe .. GerardM 21:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of few bennefits for single bi-alphabet Azerbaycani Wikipedia :
  1. Better use of resources.(One Wikipedia for one language . )
  2. Allowing the users of both scripts to co-operate in developments of articles
  3. Mutual learning of alternative scripts.
  4. Following successful example of other Wikipedias such as Kurdish Kurdish, using Arabic and Latin scripts already.
I suggeste the use of bothe alphabets in one Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Mehrdad (n)


  • 4 Oppose Oppose (Reluctantly) I wanted to be neutral, but decided that it does not really serve any purpose. The difference, other than the script, is at the dialect level and it is in the spoken language. There is no official Azerbaijani use in Iran, as far as I know, and the language used in South Azerbaijani press and the literature is standard Azerbaijani. Literature sometimes do have local influences though, but it is the case with any language and in the Azerbaijan Republic too. Furthermore, Azerbaijani Wikipedia itself needs serious improvement and diverting the attention of a very limited number of native Azerbaijani speaking users will create two almost useless Wikipedias. My suggestion is that the Ladino Wikipedia example is suitable here and we should modify Azerbaijani Wikipedia to include articles in both scripts. --TimBits 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 Oppose I am also suggesting to modify the current Azerbaijani Wikipedia so that it supports both scripts. As a native Azerbaijani language speaker, besides knowing that what we are talking about here is the same language except the scripts used in Iran and Azerbaijan Republic, the reasons for doing so are the same as the reasons provided by User:Mehrdad and User:TimBits above. --Sed 14:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 Oppose I support idea of having two scripts in already existing Azerbaijani Wikipedia. I know old people in Azerbaijan who still be able to read Azerbaijani in Arabic script which been used and taught untill 1923. Admittedly, many people around the world are familiar with Latin script currently used in Azerbaijan, including South Azerbaijanis. The only barrier is a difference in dialects. This barrier seems very weak, while there're many South Azerbaijanis living and studying in North Azerbaijan and vice versa. Alphabet and Language in Transition issue of Azerbaijan International magazine covers articles regarding Arabic/Latin scripts. We need join our forces to build powerful Azerbaijani Wikipedia. --Rustam 05:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with the opposers
  • Note: I am very interested to know the level of the knowledge of opposers about South Azerbaijani Language. They do suggest something with no meaning. They do not have enough information. They are not able to understand the differences between a language and a dialect. Also they can not understand the differences between tow scripts.Azeri language is spoken by almost 40,000,000 people (we have wiki for languages with less than 10 million speakers). Azeri language is going to be recognised as the second official language of nowadays Iran on 2009. So this is proven by the authority that has banned it for years. If you do support banning a language, do it and be as clearly as you can. As I have mentioned before, I do not want to start any political argument (or discussion) on this page, but I am sure about the truth and need of my request. It is needed because we will have the right to use and improve our own language in near future. Please do not get upset of recognising an alive language (even if you do not like it). Reality is not what we wish! It is what it is. Many thanks to supporters. BayBak --Baybak 21:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear BayBak , If there was no Azeri Wikipedia I could understand your frustration, but there is one in Latin script, ad currently we (Sys Admins of Azerbaijani Wikipedia) are discussing the work involved for inclusion development of Azeri with Arabic script[7]. Having Visited and impressed by the site you have developed single handed, wish you can help us develop the Azeri Wikipedia (Arabic Script). I am native speaker of Azeri, and familiar with both scripts, I would be more than happy to discuss your proposals further. sagolun . Mehrdad 03:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • سایقیلی مهرداد بَی، سیزون بو ایستک گرچک بیر ایستک اُلا بولمز چونکی (I wrote it to show the difference between 2 scripts) Dear Mehrdad, you are suggesting that we may have completely different scripts in one wiki! If this is the case, please tell me about benefits of that. You do not realise that the people who are able to read, write and understand these 2 scripts (like your self) are less than %5 (majority of South Aeries are not able/not willing to read/write Azeri by crylic script which is introduced to the North Azeries by Russian in 1980s. Before that we had same scripts, borders and actually everything), also we have people who do not want to use crylic /latin, they prefer to use their own scripts (improved and changed from sumerian - source for Azeri language) like myself. The main fact is that our language is banned in nowadays Iran, and because we are not happy of it and fighting for independence, so having everything written in our language by using our script is essential. Please do accept that having one wiki in 2 scripts has no use for this situation. BayBak 15:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear BayBak. Your efforts are really appreciated and we need contibutors like you in Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Currently we do not have too many users who can write in Azerbaijani with Arabic script. And by the way, there is no Azerbaijani Wikipedia in cryllic script, but this raises a question. There are many Azerbaijanis, especially older generation, who can write in cryllic but not in the current latin script. Then we might as well have a cryllic Azerbaijani Wikipedia too. One might say, yes why not. But the real question is that who will maintain 3 wikipedias in one single language? So, please come and join Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Oh, and I realized your page, it is a great work I should say, and you have the name birolmali.com- I just couldn't help but realize the irony and paradox of this and your position here. Thank you. --TimBits 16:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear TimBits, I personally appreciate people, their beliefs and their language. But our problem lies here: We do not want/we can not force at least 30,000,000 to change their writing system which they are familiar with for ages. Also I have to point that this is a bit early to have this AZB wiki because of not having enough writers and admins, but having said that in near future and after introducing the wiki to my people in South Azerbaijan, there will be good activity started on that wiki. I strongly believe there is no use of having one wiki with mixed scripts. Literate people of South Azerbaijan can not follow Azeri written in either Crylic or Latin scripts. You will see it easily in our books, papers, web sites and all other written materials those are being produced every day in S-Azerbaijan. Please take time to research and read about our past before suggesting any thing. --Baybak 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know about our past and that's why I am suggesting that we should work together to produce a useful wiki page. I do not beleive that a bi-script page is any less useful than a single script one. I do not have any reason to beleive it. And you still haven't responded wthether you want to be a part of this project or not. Whatever your decision is, I respect it. --TimBits 22:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear TimBits Thanks for asking, this is kind of you, but I am sure that I will continue to build an independent wiki for South Azeri (AZB). I will continue as I am doing now (reading, writing and thinking in my own language). I wish you a successful life.BayBak یاشاسین آذربایجان --Baybak 03:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Differences are not solely in script. There are more people literate in Southern Azerbaijani than in Northern Azerbaijani. Furthermore, script is never only script the language has a history of a culture language written in Arabic script for centuries. Behemoth 01:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 Oppose - My native language is Azarbaijani (South) But I think that contribution by Latin Alphabet is better to both Azarbayjanies, because this language is same in north and south and only alphabets are different. Kurdish languages are differenet in root but they keep all kurdish languages in one wiki project. I think that seperation of south and north wikies is suspended idea . In common project South Azarbayjanies may be know better Latin alphabets and in another hand some of Azarbaijani wiki administrator are from South then they can work better in one project instead of two seperate projects.I request from az.wikipedia adminstraters for changig main page as Kurdish wiki for supporting both alphabets. یاشاسین گونی --Yoldas 19:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Yoldas ; Why you did ignor all the comments and explanations above and came up with the word: suspended! please be more careful in choosing your words. Be aware of that we are talking about the language of more than 30,000,000 people who do not use Latin alphabet at all! The people those have their own language banned!. Now how and why you want to intagrate these 2 different scripts in one wiki and make the new script of 8,000,000 (that is being used since 1990s)? How can you close your eyes on the majority of Azerbaijanies and their respectfull beliefs? Please, as I have mentioned above, we must be realistic as we can and do not panik of hearing new voices that comes from the new generation of South Azerbaijan. South will keep its Script together with its past and future. We have not changed our script for centuries (actually it belongs to us as well as is to Arabs and Persians), so do not even think we will change it. Speaking on my behalf, this is going to be tough but reality is the winner of history. We are looking beyond these, so far, victory. Also be patient and read/understand more about where you belong to.یاشاسین گونی ایله قوزِی BayBak --Baybak 22:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Dear BayBak , No one is asking or encouraging to change no ones script. What our friend Yoldas is pointing out is the fact that this arrangement of two script in one Wikipedia would bring more consorted efforts by users and administrators of the both scripts, and would make each side familiar with the other alphabet. I am very glad to let you know that since the suggestion for dual aphabetical Azerbaijani Wikipedia has been discussed, two of active users, one being an admin, have asked me for resources to learn the South Azerbaijani script. This is not only encouraging, I would say this is exciting. Mehrdad 02:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Yoldas , The work for the inclusion of the South Azerbaijani titles in the main page of Azeri Wikipedia has been started, and would love to hear users comments on that. http://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azeri
We all need to help to set the background work for the bidirectional editing, templates, messages and more. Yoldash thanks for participating in this talk, and would love to meet you and BayBak in Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Mehrdad 02:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I just read this discussion (for the second time really after some days) ... what I can say is: I (personally ... so this is pure POV) don't like the way things are brought up here. Considering that we should only care about linguistical matters (NPOV) and not political matters here I would very kindly ask to reflect for a moment and ask yourself: are you linguistically prepared to answer these question? I must admit: I am not, even if I seem to recall that there is more than just a script difference. Well, I will look into this - and I don't know how long I will take to do so. But: we must remain impartial = NPOV please when it comes to North/South questions ... these tend to become political in mind even if we try not to be political (what a sentence ...). Please take a break from this discussion. Thank you! --Sabine 20:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 Support Strongly Support Why can't you people just let some 25 million people have their own wikipedia? All bi-alphabet wikipedias always end up having most articles in one script and not the other. For example, check out Kurdish Wikipedia. I can't believe people are supporting things like Zeelandic which are just dialects of other languages using the SAME ALPHABET but not for dialects that use different alphabets.--69.174.252.80 01:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Azerbaijani Wikipedia is already bi-alphabet, so in fact this request has already been obviated. As there are potentially more native Azerbaijani speakers using Arabic alphabet than Latin, in the long term I would predict that Azerbaijani Wikipedia will be the most successful of the bi-script wikis and can be a good example for other such projects. As for the supposed failure of other bi-script wikis, it certainly can not be a reason that would prevent commited editors from working on this project. --TimBits 02:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I too hope this will be more successful bi-script Wikipedia. I hope it will be successful bi-script unlike the other bi-script wikipedias. I hope they get more good helpful users like BayBak in making the Arabic Script version "catch up". I think the question of Cyrillic script Azerbaijani is to use the same tool they have at Serbian, but I don't think it's possible to do the same with Latin scripts and Arabic. Their too different.--69.174.252.80 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 Oppose get dual script working. It will be harder than Cyrillic/Latin but is feasible. I'm willing to work on this — interested parties should contact me. It will probably be easiest to do Latin->Arabic because of the vowel problem, cf. this which I have been working on. - FrancisTyers 19:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: Political: I have a hard time understanding these (intentionally foggy, to me) political arguments. Is it true that speaking Azeri in Iran is currently prohibited, and that this may be lifted in 2009, if … ? - and an azb WP would support this likely more than an All-Azerbaijani Wikipedia which would rather help raise fears in politicians of Iran, of a region wanting to separate from Iran and form an Azerbaidjan-Reunited state? Please make sure that answers to this question come from independant/international sources only that are not potential subjects to political harrasment!
    Technical: When suggesting to make a triple-scripted WP, I mean that you can write something in one script, alter your user prefrences, and subsequently have everything shown in another script, including what you previously wrote. (As you have it with traditional/simplified Han Chinese, e.g.) While this seems not readily available for az yet, if it can be expected in a reasonable time, I'd suggest not to have a separate WP based on the argument of script alone. If such conversion needs dictionary assistance, have a look at Ultimate Wiktionary+WktionaryZ. --Purodha Blissenbach 11:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 Oppose seperation. Arabic and latin alphabets are aligned in the wrong sides of the screen and hence arent very compatible. It is unlikely for a person used to the arabic script to understand latin alphabet and vice versa. Simmilar seperation should be observed on other languages. Alternatively, it can all be merged to Turkish... --Cat out 18:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I understand this is actualy a political nom. I have been informed that two diferent scripts can work fine and since the comunity on az. wiki uses both scripts I hereby oppose the suggestion. In order to change my vote I need reasons that has nothing to do with politics. --Cat out 19:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 Support تام دستک

آذربایجاندا و خصوصی ایله گونیده دیلیمیزه چوخلو ایجحاف اولونور. بونو دوردورماق اوچون اولدوغو ایمکانلاری ایشه آیمامیز گرکلیدیر. عرب آدلانان الیفبانی دستکلییرم --Tebriz 09:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 11 Support I don't understand people that don't want new wikipedias...I supported it 'cos, if there are peole that spoke it, why they can't have his own wikipedia?--Norrin_strange
  • 12 Support This is a language spoken by many in a developing part of the world. It is important that people from this sort of area have access to knowledge freely, which may not be possible for them with the current Azerbaijani wikipedia. mm_pie 20:14 3 September 2006 (GMT)
Azerbaijani language Wikipedia, as explained below, exactly aims to do that. There are dedicated Iranian Azerbaijani users who help us achieving our goal of creating the perfect bi-script wiki. On the other hand, so far, there has not been a promise to contibute by anyone to this current request, other than the user who brought up the proposal. I again request that everyone, before making a decision, to take into consideration the fact that the Azerbaijani Wikipedia is already dual-script and this has pretty much obviated the current request. Thank you. --TimBits 19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems some of our firiends here are not aware that Azerbaijani Wikipedia in two scripts already has established and up and running. The Arabic script has been integrated into the initially latin based Wikipedia:
  1. RtL Button tools Many features in the "edith" pages ease the use of Right-to-Left. Arabic script.
  1. List of all Arabic characters,above the Copy Right message, allows edithing in Arabic scripts for those who do not have Arabic keybord.
  1. Most of system messages are translitrated to Arabic script, and the rest are in the process of being translated.
The articles using Arabic alphabet are in increase, and those interested can participate to bring them to be in the same footing with the latin ones.
I invite all interested users to give a visit to http://az.wikipedia.org .
Mehrdad 18:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 Oppose Oppose it is one language in North- and South-Azerbaijan --Juhan 19:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


* Dear Mehrdad , why are you keep asking people to accept 2in1 wiki? What will happen to both parts of Azerbaijan after 10 years? Is it possible to have scripts changed again (as it has happend 4 times in the Northern part and once in South)?. If 1 script is changed by then, what will be your response? Will you fight them back? I understand that you work hard to keep your 2in1 wiki seems working, but this is a fact that 1 wiki for 1 script is the right thing to do. Please do not push/force, advertise/encourage people to accept your idea. At the end, please tell me of the benefits of your 2in1 wiki and the goals you achived by now. BayBak

Zazaki Wikipedia

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

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

The requested project was created at diq: at an indeterminate date. Note that this request was approved before the implementation of the standardised Language proposal policy, and should not be used as a model for future requests. Shanel 06:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Number of speakers: Estimated somewhere between 2 - 4 million.
  • Locations spoken: Mostly in eastern Turkey, Germany, and Sweden
  • Related languages:en:Iranian languages
  • related pages:
Paul, Ludwig. (1998) "The Position of Zazaki Among West Iranian languages" University of Hamburg,[13].
Lynn Todd, Terry. (1985) "A Grammar of Dimili" University of Michigan,[14].
Gippert, Jost. (1996) "Historical Development of Zazaki" Frankfurt University,[15].
Gajewski, Jon. (2003) "Evidentiality in Zazaki" Massachusetts Institute of Technology,[16].
Gajewski, Jon. (2004) "Zazaki Notes" Massachusetts Institute of Technology,[17].
Larson, Richard. and Yamakido, Hiroko. (2006) "Zazaki as Double Case-Marking" Stony Brook University and University of Arizona,[18].


Summary

Supporters

  1. Xoser (N)
  2. Mirzali (N)
  3. mavzer (N)
  4. Taichi
  5. Avestazazaki (N)
  6. Caesarion
  7. fadime (N)
  8. 84.59.15.83
  9. 84.58.56.244
  10. asmen(N)
  11. 84.59.30.127
  12. 217.81.88.155
  13. 210.54.236.144
  14. Aktalo
  15. Atakan (N)
  16. vardis
  17. baboali
  18. Usen
  19. 84.61.70.23
  20. Hesen
  21. Sobê
  22. nl:Boudewijn Idema
  23. Mahmoud
  24. yemose
  25. Chamdarae
  26. Hamad
  27. Mehrdad
  28. Arbeo
  29. Behemoth
  30. 85.108.101.100 Zazahan
  31. Adiresewe
  32. 195.93.60.97
  33. 62.245.207.18
  34. 84.58.12.57
  35. Bertal
  36. 195.33.98.148
  37. Adirê Embaz
  38. Necati Balpayam
  39. Murat
  40. 80.145.76.244
  41. 80.145.126.226
  42. Jose77
  43. Yaroslav Zolotaryov
  44. The Jade Knight
  45. --Reza 18:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. — Timichal • 00:06, 18. Jul 2006
  47. 81.215.169.136
  48. Steel archer
  49. 194.158.213.210
  50. 218

Opposers

  1. Erdal Ronahi
  2. Mesopotamia
  3. Diyako
    The Jade Knight
    83.164.10.225
    84.61.72.159
    Skywalker us
    RoboDoc
    New Nirvana
    84.113.55.73
    213.39.208.241
    84.152.107.53
    83.76.91.150
    84.132.242.239 (see the discussion page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Requests_for_new_languages/diq])
  4. Hégésippe
  5. 85.181.67.17
  6. Node ue
  7. Ciwan
  8. Heja helweda
  9. en:Pjacobi

Neutral

  1. Elya
  2. Jmabel

Comments

I propose to choose one, Maviulke: Kirmanjki or Dimli. Belgian man (nl na en) 16:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dimli (Southern Zazaki) and Kirmanjki (Northern Zazaki) are mutually understandable. Together, they form Zaza branch of Zaza-Gorani Languages grup. --XOser 16:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Taichi regarding to domain name. As the proposer of Zazaki Wikipedia, I changed the domain name to <<dig.wikipedia.org>> <<zz.wikipedia.org>> or zzz.wikipedia.org.--Xoser 21:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I wholeheartedly support the creation of a Zazaki wikipedia. I hope it will attract as many people as it can and it will develop into a good source of Zazaish language in Internet. Mirzali (N) 15:33, 17 January 2006
I strongly support the creation of a Zazaki wikipedia! I think it's a good idea to have a separate wikipedia on mentioned language, because it is independent from other Iranian languages such as Kurdish, Persian, Balochi etc.
"Languages are the chief distinguishing marks of people. No people in fact comes into being until it speaks a language of its own; let the languages perish and the people perish too, or become different people. But that never happens except as the result of oppression and distress." Mirzali (N) 00:15, 18 January 2006
  • Support -- I support zaza.wikipedia.org mavzer (N) from Anatolia. Mavzer destê de mı de na koon de cêreno,Ezo ke Partizano, dano dısmeni rê.
  • Strong Support -- If dialects like West Low Saxon, Low German, Bavarian, Zeelandic, High German, Pennsylvanian German, Limburgs and West-Flemish etc. are allowed to have their own wikipedias, then Zazaki would have the right to create its own separate wiki since Zazaki is a separate language and not a mere dialect of Kurdish [19] --Jose77 03:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, strongly oppose. --Erdal Ronahi 22:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC) The reason is this: There are some people who continously vandalize the Kurdish, the Turkish, the German and the English Wikipedia on Zaza-related pages. Now they seem to have come to Meta, where they are not so well known. I am an administrator of the Kurdish Wikipedia. Most Zaza-speakers regard Zaza as a dialect of Kurdish. Therefore we have created a Zaza-Mainpage in the Kurdish Wikipedia. We have created a category. We can create a namespace. But: These people have not yet written ONE single article in their language/dialect. If they would, we can discuss about splitting the Kurdish Wikipedia. But I strongly disbelieve they have the intention to create an encyclopedia in Zazakî. See the following edit diff to get a hint what I am talking about: [20] My proposal: They are invited to write 100 articels in the Kurdish Wikipedia, THEN let's split it.[reply]


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

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

Please be logic.


I do not agree with the opposers.

1) en:Ethnologue lists Zazaki as a different language, not a dialect of any language:[21]

2 en:Ethnologue also list Zazaki dialects "Sivereki, Kori, Hazzu (Hazo), Motki (Moti), Dumbuli (Dumbeli)."[22]

3) Here is another source that says Zazaki is a different langauge. Extra, Guus. and Gorter, Durk. The Other Languages of Europe.[23]

4 Moreover, the US State Department "Background Note" lists Zaza as one of the major languages of Turkey, along with Turkish (official), Kurdish, Armenian, Greek, and Arabic. [24]. Zazaki Language is indeed a distinct language. --69.107.107.182 00:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

It doesn't matter whether Zazaki is a language or a dialect. It can still have its wikipedia like other dialects.

--Maviulke12 01:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear friends and participants,

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

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


Our language Zaza By Faruk Iremet

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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



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

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

2.) Second to have the same Culture and Lifestyle



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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Biji Kurdistan.

  • SUPPORT - Zazaish is a own language and not a dialect of Kurdish. The grammar, the phonetics and vokubular in Zazaish is completely differently. Even English and German are closer itself. A Zaza can not unterstand Kurdish. --Sobê 17:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support On closer inspection, I see that many, including Ethnologue, do not classify it as a group of Kurdish dialects but rather alongside it. However, the fact that there is an opportunity to write in Zazaki on the Kurdish Wikipedia which no-one even seemed to have attempted to use remains. Make a flourishing test Wikipedia here on meta (see Test-wp) and see if you can convince me.

Support nl:Boudewijn Idema, 13:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Support Mahmoud 05:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Zazaish is structurally quite distinct from Kurdish, so I hope it eventually has a separate wikipedia. It's a pity about the voting performance here though - we really don't know how much native speaker support there is. Starting a test-wiki, either on meta or on the Kurdish wikipedia, may help persuade us of the sincerity of this request. --Chamdarae 17:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks you all, that you see the truth finally . There is many people thay can speaking perfekt zazaish. In some zazaish boards, some people are ready writing long texts. See as example here: http://www.f25.parsimony.net/forum62148/messages/23376.htm
This is a very long text in zazaish, its from the author of http://www.kormiskan.info.se/. He writes always such long texts. He also will supporting the zazaish Wikipedia. --Sobê 18:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest oppose possible. I'll reserve judgement about the linguistic status of Zazaki. Maybe it's a separte language, maybe it's a dialect of Kurdish, that's totally irrelevant here. What matters, is that there are already Wikipedia pages in Zazaki, and you can write any page on any topic in Zazaki already at ku.wp. Feel free to go ahead and accuse me of being a "Kurdish nationalist", even though I don't speak a word of Kurdish. But I do know that Sayyid Reza, a Zaza, fought and died for Kurdistan... --Node ue 07:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The grammer, the phonetics and also the vocubulary of Zazaki are COMPLETLY differently! Here it goes sighting around facts and not around political! --Sobê 11:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who the fcuk cares??? I don't care whether or not Zazaki is a language. Whatever. What I do care about is that you guys are already free to write as many articles in Zazaki as you want, here. There is no need to create a new Wiki for you. If it's a separate language, it doesn't matter either way. --Node ue 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its a seperate Language and NOT Kurdish, why we thus write in the KURDISH Wikipedia?? --Sobê 19:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Zazaki Test Wikipedia

Yes, i am not a proposer. Nevertheless i created now a test-wp in Zazaki. --Sobê 19:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/diq
Dear „Sobê“!
Who gave you the consent to create so precipitated a Zazaki Test-wp? Besides the –uncompleted- preface text was my proposal to Maviulke12. You simply copied this and changed it in your own dialect?! But you are not the proposer. Please, don’t! Let it better the competent persons do. That will not do, just to write some words or translate these into Turkish. You have to explain the terms completely in Zazaish. It must also be written in a common Zaza language and not in any dialects. --mirzali 14:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I write in the history, that I copied the texts from the proposer Maviulke12! I changed NOTHING in the text!
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Test-wp/diq&action=history
If you will a zazaish wikipedia, then DOES which! I only started the test-wp, that YOU can WORK! I do not see a sense waiting therein so for a long time for nothing. Its better for all, that the supporters here can planing their ideas in a test-wp.
The Users above say: "Make a flourishing test Wikipedia here on meta (see Test-wp) and see if you can convince me." And i only opened the test-wp, that YOU have a signal, to can work and do not further wait. It does NOT make differentiated between who it opened. It is important that the project PRECEDES. I wanted to only help you. You do not have to be equivalent insulting! --Sobê 15:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you understand anything my friend? If you had read attentively on discussion page from Maviulke12, you would see… IT IS MY TEXT! Have you ever asked me or maviulke12 before using this? NO! And it was not completed, because the orthography was bound to correct by a competent person, like asmen. --mirzali 21:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is unimportantly of whom the text is, but that there are one!
In the test-wp is a edit-function and you can edit when you want and correct the text my friend. That is not the world fall. Error can one at any time problem-free correct.
UPDATE: Now I wrote in the discussion that the text is of you. ;-) --Sobê 12:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Test-wp/diq
Thank you very much for your effort my friend! :-)--mirzali 10:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurds vandalize permanently our project on Test-wp/diq, steal our texts and put them to their page (Kurdish Wikipedia). This is an enormous shameless act, it must be stopped!!! --mirzali 02:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurds already occupied unjustly the name Zazaki and they try now lay claim to some privileges. They make permanently some polemics! The fact is, that we don’t want see our Zazaki articles and layouts under ku. Wikipedia.
We want legitimately our independence. So long as the Kurds declare Zazaish as a so-called Kurdish dialect, their act is well valid as a stealing. Everything else what they say is hypocritical and not credible.
If they really wanted Zazaki flourishing, they could write some other new Zazaki texts by themselves –without copying or stealing from 'our' pages-. But, I know well that they can’t this, because Zazaish is a foreign language for them. The important thing to them is the Kurdish nationalism and not absolutely the Zaza language. In reality they were concerned that the Zazas better have to learn or speak Kurdish.--mirzali 02:47, 02 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for pragmatic, not fundamental, reasons. Just start writing in ku: and it will become clear whether there are enough quality contributors for Zazaki. In the current state, and given the amount of vandalism, name calling and rude behaviour which affected the Zazaki articles on quite some Wikipedias, I very much doubt that there is a large and diverse enough editorship. That is not meant as an insult against serious contributors, but it's collateral damage of the actions we've also seen on this voting page. en:Pjacobi/de:Pjacobi Lost my meta-password, damn. Didn't update the totals, as it is quite unclear, which vote should count.
Zazaki writers are already writing in the Zazaki-Test Wikipedia. You can see there how many contributors they have so far. So, I don’t understand why they should write under ku: Beside that, vandalism does not happen only here. Vandalism is happening in every part of Wikipedia, and the Zazaki Test-page is vandalized several times. --Hamad 01:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I strongly support the Zazaki Wikipedia. Here is why I support the Zazaki Wikipedia:
1. The Zazaki-Test Wikipedia has over 100+ articles just in three weeks. Whereas, none of the Zazaki writers wrote even one single article in the ku: wikipedia since a section was opened there. Doesn’t this show that they are not willing to write there? So, why do force them to write there? Keep in mind Wikipedia is not paper that we are going to print thousands.


2. According to Ethnologue there are eight different Iranian language categories. [26] The relationship between Zazaki and Kurdish is the same as with other eight language categories. So, if Zazaki writers are not going to get their separate wikipedia, then why others like Mazandarani writers should get their separate wikipedia? Moreover, there are two Zazaki Dialects: Northern (Kirmajiki) and Southern (Dimli) Zazaki, and there are already great differences between them.


3. There are 23 supports so far and many of them are native speakers. The opposers are not even native speakers. Many of them oppose it because of political reasons, not for linguistic reasons. Even a dead language like Coptic is approved in a short time without any support from even one single native speaker. I don’t really understand why the Zazaki Wikipedia still stuck here.--Hamad 01:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Zazaki users deserve their own Wikipedia, if they feel it can help them to attract more users and provide a better service to users. The Kurdish Wikipedia does not use Zazaki in page titles, messages, user registration etc etc. So Zazaki users wouldn't feel at home using that wikipedia. The low number of articles in Zazaki tells it all. 15 article in all ! Mehrdad 16:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I find it quite sad that some members of an oppressed group such as the Kurds, feel a need to lay claim to the efforts of Zazakis who simply wish to write in their native language. If there is enough support, then leave it at that. There is no reason to oppose it because of it's linguistic origins, even if the science is vague. If Kurdish people want to have the articles on the Kurdish WP, they should simply copy the Zazaki ones (once they are published), translate, and source them appropriately.
  • I must admit I had never heard about Zazaki before reading this request here. That's why I didn't have an opinion on this one so far. Having gathered some information now I would actually support a Zazaki Wikipedia - if there weren't those annoying voting irregularities (on both sides, presumably)! There seems to be convincing evidence that Zazaki is to be considered a separate language from Kurdish (or the group of Kurdish dialects, for that matter). Therefore, hosting Zazaki articles at ku-WP is indeed not useful. I believe that many of the opposing votes here are probably due to a lack of information. However, experience shows that fake pro votes usually discredit requests so much that the community is very unlikely to ever approve such requests. I'd really recommend to withdraw all fake votes as a fair request will have a much better chance of being regarded with favor and eventually approved by the community. Arbeo 14:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arbeo, we already anulated those votes; they are not counted. However, I don't believe a Zaza did this foolish act. --Maviulke12 15:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's just that the whole request has become pretty complex and it was a little hard to tell what counts and what doesn't. I don't say it was a Zaza - I only saw a few votes that looked fishy and in the past a couple of requests got torpedoed because of that. If somebody has plenty of time, one make a numbered vote summary at the beginning of the request (like in the Upper Silesian one), too. That way, the whole thing would gain clarity. Oh, by the way:

Here is more about Zazaki:



  • I Support Zazaki Wikipedia strongly. Too much and inserious politics is done here. Even many dialects have an own section, but an acknowledged langauge like Zazaki not, why? Who gave especially the Kurdish nationalists the to oppose when they self can't create a Zazaki Wikipedia even under kurdish, having done nothing for that language, nobody did contribute to the Zazaki section under kurdish, but the Zazaki Test Wikipedia succeeded with over 100 Articles in 3 weeks!

Once again, don't come with slogans or bad words or political nationalistic arguments. By the way: Sure, there are many young Zazas who know themselves as Turks or Kurds but they can't even talk their language. On the other hand there isn't any strong and wide political movement for the Zazas, i.e. no other alternative as to chose the Turkish or Kurdish side. NONE of our older people especially the ones who don't speak Turkish, do signify themself as Turk or Kurd, they refuse the Turkish or Kurdish identification for themselves. That is the real argument from our authentic Zaza-people. The Kurds are called Kirdas or Kurmanc. For Node: Sheikh Said from Palu or Seyid Riza from Dersim did never fight for a Kurdistan. The Kurds didn't even hepl them! Dr. Hüseyin Caglayan and many other Zaza intellectuals made interviews with the witnesses of that time, including Seyid Riza's daughter and grandchildren. He asked each of them also, if it's true what other people claim that Seyid Riza's aim was Kurdistan, all of them refuse that. Look: Dr. Hüseyin Caglayan: 38 ra jü pelge. Istanbul, Tij Yayinlari, 500 s.

Sima ziwanê ma nêzanê, yenê itya de linge erzenê ziwanê ma ver. Eybo Eybo! --Adiresewe

ZAZA_UMUT  :*support -- I support Zazaki Wikipedia --62.245.207.18 21:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawar Tornêcengi : *support -- I support Zazaki Wikipedia --84.58.12.57 23:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Strongly *Support I do strongly support Zazaki Wikipedia...[reply]

  • Support I do strongly support Zazaki Wikipedia...-Necati Balpayam
  • Support -- I support zaza.wikipedia.org Zazaki is related to Avestan and Old Persian languages; it is suppressed and forbidden by colonial rulers. Adirê Embaz 5 may 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I strongly support Zazaki Wikipedia...-Murat
  • Support Zazaki and Kurdi are very different each other. Ukrainish and Russisch also have some similarities but they are seperated. Also Azerbaijan and Turkish(they are 80% same) Wikipedia are seperated. 80.145.126.226 13:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I strongly support Zazaki Wikipedia forever,Zazaish is my Life,I love Zazaish...Roberd Waldinger/Ober Bayern
  • Daraheni recently solicited me to change my vote. I'm still basically neutral on this. I'm not sure there is really a gain in separating this from other Kurdish languages, but if there are more than half a dozen people who will each commit to actively working on this once it's created, I guess I'd change to support. - Jmabel 06:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domain Name

The domain name for Zazaki will (if it is approved) be diq.wikipedia.org. zzz is not a correct code (from ISO-639). However you feel about it, that is what it will be. Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnologue's "diq" code describes only one dialect of the Zazaki Language. However, three are two more dialects. If we use "diq.wikipedia.org", we exclude possible contributors from other Zazaki dialects. This would be a big problem for the Zazaki Wikipedia since we need to bring more editors to make this project successful. I hope admins and developers reconsider this issue. --Maviulke12 13:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Maviülke12. You can also consult the Zaza-Language Institute in Frankfurt (www.zazaki-institut.de) or for example the Iranist Dr. Ludwig Paul ( Ludwig.Paul ad uni-hamburg.de ), who published his doctor thesis about the Zaza-Language and his dialects If necessary, I'll request him to write to you. I think, sil.org should not be taken as the only competent base for languages. --Asmen 19:41, 3 September 2006 (CET)

Hello...According to Ethnologue Zazaki language has two dialects, and their language-codes are diq (Southern Zazaki) and kiu (Northern Zazaki). And Ethnologue has the code zza now, for the macrolanguage Zazaki by including both diq and kiu language codes of Zazaki dialects. Can you change the doamin diq.wikipedia.org into zza.wikipedia.org. Then you can redirect the diq.wikipedia.org to zza.wikipedia.org..Thanks..--Belekvor 20:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Belarusian Wikipedia

submitted verification final decision
This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 22:02:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Current Belarusian (Сучасная беларуская мова, bel ISO 639-3)
  • Editing community: Sidorsky (NP), Semashko (N), trasianka editor, Alexander Gouk (N)
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: —
  • External links:
    —
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Number of speakers: 8 million (at least)
  • Locations spoken: Official language of the Republic of Belarus

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

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

  • SUPPORT - Two (even three) different standards in one encyclopedia are very confusing. Many articles contain a mixture of both official and alternative languages, preventing the community of editors from growth. It is still a difficulty for many students to use current belarussian wikipedia for educational aims because of different standards. The present belarussian Wikipedia is dominated by users (and administrators) writing in alternative and not official version of Belarussian: a new article created in alternative language cannot be edited in the official language even it's a stub (a rule in Be-Wiki). The creation of a new project would also prevent many of local "wiki"-conflicts between users, still taking place there. And last but not least: belarussians grow up with literature - excellent prosa and poetry - written in official present-day belarussian language, also an official language of sciences in Belarus. Isn't it a reason enough to launch a new project? Alexander Gouk 21:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every time writing an article in the present Belarussian Wikipedia or editing an existing one I have a feeling that i put the text into the wrong place. It's not possible to get rid of it. There are articles written with latin characters, articles written with usage of ciryllic characters not listed in the alphabet, articles written in official language are linked to categories in alternative language... It' confusing... Every time... And there is no wish and sense to begin the discussion... It will lead to nothing. This words are not agains administrators and users promoting the alternative language, most of them are enthusiasts. But they startet at the very beginning, offen creating stubs in alternative language, which cannot be replaced with official language, even containing only some words. There should be a solution... Alexander Gouk 20:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about changing spelling policy. There is simple policy to change spelling of article: to get permission form author(s) or (if not author available) administrators. As far as I remember, you did not try to ask such questions. So please don't claim that this is impossible. --EugeneZelenko 04:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT - I support Present Belarusian Wikipedia user:Semashko (N) 11:39, 09 February 2006
  • Oppose - there is currently a request for a Trasianka Wikipedia; see elswhere on this page. Disputes about how to write Belarusian should be solved on the be: Wikipedia, not by splitting up a Wikipedia. It's essentially the same language we're talking about, and you and the be:-administrators should be a little more cooperative and tolerant towards each other's concept of what written Belarusian should be like. Caesarion 11:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Caesarion, can you say that Old English and English is essentially the same? In my opinion Belarusian ("Present Belarusian") and a complex of regional dialects plus strong Polish influence ("Belarusian") are different. You are right as for "Trasianka" - it's not the separate language. The relation between these three forms is the following: be.-Belarusian (archaic Northwestern dialects + Polish + US English americanisms) - Present Belarusian (the official language of Belarus) - Trasianka (Belarusian + Russian). If you think it's normal situation when Belarusian wiki is written not in Belarusian, so perhaps you can propose how to find a place for the real Belarusian language in Wikipedia? It's not so easy as splitting up a Wikipedia for hardly existing Germanic dialects but could you try, please? - Ivan Sidorsky 09:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about the details of this situation, but a comparision with Modern English and Old English is certainly absurd. By the way, the English article about Belarusian already boasts a strong influence of Polish, and this article was edited several times by some of the most prominent be: users, including Rydel, just to name one. What they most likely do is keeping Russian influences out, but are they really reconstructing a language that was spoken some 1,200 years ago, as Old English was? Compare, for example, "Þā Geānlǣhtan Rīcu American is land in þǣm American. Sceortlīce wrīteþ man USA, and þis land hæfþ 297 millionen lēoda" and "The United States of America is a country in America. In short, it is written USA, and this country has 297 inhabitants." Are present day spoken Belarusian and Belarusian the way it is written really as dissimilar as old and modern English? I bet not. (Btw tell me why some German regional languages "hardly exit", according to you). Caesarion 12:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Wikipedia is being constructed for: languages, nations or cultures? If first, we have more strong position than those who promote dead language for cultural-ideological reasons. After all, I highly appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and it's a sad surprise for me, that you've decided to help people pursuing other aims. - Ivan Sidorsky 09:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not particularly helping people who promote archaic, maybe unnatural forms of a language. As I said before, I am in favour of a more cooperative solution. Maybe the be: community should be more tolerant towards a form of Belarusian that is closer to the living, spoken language. If necessary, contact the Board of Trustees and make them resolve this dispute. They are very, very unlikely to allow two separate wikipedias in the same language. Moreover, it is a fact that they usually favour an official, standardised form of a language. You should absolutely try to come to terms with the be: community before you jump into steps like these. Caesarion 16:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, if somebody could tell, what would you recommend to do, where to write in such case, it would be reasonable to close the discussion here, because it makes no more sense now, after you've told, that it is not the way of solving such problems. Where is that Board of Trustees, how could it look, I mean what are we to write? trasianka editor 00:57, 07 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not able to answear you that question, but if you wan't make a deal with actual be-wiki admins I can support your effort to help large amounts of educated present Belarusan language speakers to contribute to Wikipedia. D_T_G 20:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


COMMENT Ken, how long since you have been in Belarus'? some 200 years? Belarusian is a dying language, and it's really worth saving it because of this. But claiming an 8 million figure is at the very least ridicolous. Most people there speak russian, and the more evoluted (prodvinutye) drop in an english word each every two. Same applies to Ukraine, where I live. Languages must be judged as languages, not as political pawns. It's a BIG piece of Europe's culture we deal with, not just flags on some generals' strategical map. Breaking a small, weak and dying language into further bits just because admins do not like each other is a wonderful way to kill it once and for all. Think about it. Then maybe vote to remove the old admin, if he really is so uncapable to do a good job. I'll support you. bertodsera 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Also a good point. Belarusian is mother-tongue for 80% of Belarusians - the statistics say. It's 8 mln people. They know the language, they've learn at school, and heard from parents and grandparents - it's Present Belarusian. Now, in Internet the percentage of archaic form users, is bigger then in the real (not virtual) world, so often people have to, let me say, 'reload' their language-sense to the archaic form. But more often they just don't want to play those games - they just use Russian, not even trying to use the official, literary present form, cause mostly people are unpolitical, not interested in nationalist's games and plans. trasianka editor 21:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statistics is great, bur real life is not... How much people in Minsk (1.7 mln) who speak (and potentially will contribute to any form of Belarusian Wikipedia) Belarusian? I fear that bigger part of them is opposition... --EugeneZelenko 14:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it. You make us involved in politics. I say Wikipedia must not be connected or depend on politics at all. I don't stay on neither the government position, nor the opposite views; I only can ascertain that there's a living language, and it has its own wide spread academic norms which we are to follow (and the Belarusian people does), especially on Wikipedia or other scientific sources. trasianka editor 19:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't talk about politics, and did not involve anybody in politics. I talked about Belarusian language situation. That millions of speakers is a little bit overestimated number... Belarusian language exists in forms of classic (łacinka included) and official spelling independently from what you think about classic spelling. And you could not do too much with this fact. --EugeneZelenko 14:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Belarusian Wikipedia does not favor classic spelling over official (present days). It contains articles on both spellings. There were some edit wars based on spelling at beginning of 2005, but since that time both spellings coexists peacefully without major problems. Belarusian speaking Internet community is not so big, so further spelling dividing will do more harm then good. --EugeneZelenko 15:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's absurd what you say. First, there's no right to call the archaic form "classic" as you all do. 'Classic' means literary, present, codified, fixed in literature, encyclopedias (not in nationalist's manifests) - that's the present Belarusian. Then 'does not favor' - what should it mean? It's all not about doing favors anybody, but to conform the existing spelling and orthoepic norms. How can 'two spellings coexist'? Especially when you have to mark they even do not obtain the same codified form of their 'classic' language, but as anyone wants - "taraškievica"/"viačorkavica"/"našanivaŭka"/"dziejasłovica" and so on. Plus "łacinka" - more one completly another project. It seems totally abnormal. The norm means the norm. A law is a law. It prevents any 'spelling dividing'. trasianka editor 21:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So oppose (s-tagged D_T_G 18:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)) - as I said previously (I also voted against sub-be-wiki projects like trasianka and west-palesian) that will only support if described by Trasianka editor struggle at be-wiki won't seem to stop, and according to EugeneZelenko it doesn't so I oppose present Belarusian proposal. Regards, D_T_G 19:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absurd. There are 3 (at least) spelling systems on one Wikipedia. I'm not telling, you couldn't write on present Belarusian in be:Wiki, I'm saying, that's you, who have no right to write articles in some nationalistic half-archaic half-puristic language project spelling/orthoepics - as a main project or mixing it with normal. There's one normal codified form. Not 3 equal. trasianka editor 01:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You overturn it all from legs up on a head. Modern literary Belarusian language with its owen grammatic norms is not my personal point of view, it is the fact fixed in millions of pages of scientific and fiction literature. At the same time the imaginations of mister Viačorka and its followers really is his personal sight and vision of the Belarusian language. Therefore I say that the official policy of Belarusian Wikipedia should follow the official rules and the norms existing at present in Belarusian. Do not confuse the NPOV policy to elementary following literacy in spelling and orthoepics - in fact it is impossible, that people write as they want within the limits of the same project. On the maintenance of articles - there can be different points of view; but on a writing of articles in any language there can be only one position: it's following the academic grammar as it is. As if to "codification of "classical" spelling" - the last creation of "філёляг" ("philologist") Viačorka - you know very well, that this edition has not brought any unity even to admirers of "reformers-classics" and a pair of newspapers and magazines have continued to write in their own ways. And the same: diffirent treatments (and sometimes just elementary illiteracy) - now in be:Wiki too. And it's all because of your "spelling democracy" (which de-facto is anarchy). trasianka editor 20:12, 3 April 2006
  • Already is be:! I Shall support if bel: will duplicate be: and that between them there was no struggle. But I think bel: provocation as you initiated also tra: & zpo:. --MaximLitvin 10:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, it wasn't me who proposed zpo:Wiki and bel:Wiki, I've only supported them. The only problem of tra:Wiki is now lack of supporters but I'll try to manage it. It's neither provocation, nor fun. We are going to make an encyclopedia. Neither zpo:Wiki is a provocation. It's a language of ethnic minority as for example Ligurian (lij:) or Emilian-Romagnol. You call it provocations? Be:Wiki is not in Present normal Belarusian, in fact, there's language anarchy there - 'write as you want and don't oppose others in their own views on how should we write and tell it in "classic" Belarusian'. It's probably be: (archaic form) which could dublicate Present Belarusian Wiki as sub-project or some kind of interface for the amateurs of archaic while bel: should be official; not as you say. The struggle or discussions about probably reforming (as you propose) present Belarusian should not be held in Wiki (or any other encyclopedias or sources) but in Akademy of Sciences or among philologists. But there's official grammar and lexics and Belarusians use it. trasianka editor 13:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Belarus language one. There is no archaic language - there are different norms of language. Distinctions in norms of language are caused by the political reasons - the antiBelarus policy of communists. I badly know classical norms. It is impossible to divide Byelorussians on the basis of "ь" (conditionally). Especially now, when the Belarus language can die. Why two do not suggest to make ru: - for those who uses the letter "ё" and for those who does not use the letter "ё"? I not against bel: as subproject. I against bel: as separate project. West-palesian not language of a national minority (there is no minority). It not established a dialect (there are no strict norms, literatures) the Belarus language (or a Ukranian language). It to you will tell in any Academy of sciences :) --MaximLitvin 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.There can be the only norm of language and it exists - the academic literary present Belarusian. 2.I'm not going to argue on any antiBelarus policy of communists - I'm not talking about any politics. 3.It's amatours of "classic norms" who divide people, not me: I say there's one language and one grammar/spelling/lexics norms. 4.Your comparison to Russian "ё" situation makes no sense: there they don't have any weird projects, but some people say they can use "ё" (or not), the others say they must. They are talking about only one letter, not the hole grammar system. And everybody in Russia knows the situation - it even can't be called serious problem, while in Belarus the majority of people just are not interested in any "classic"-projects. 5.As I've said before, it's any alternative systems are to be sub-projects - the official form is to be main project. 6. Let's discuss zpo:Wiki on its own part. trasianka editor 20:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I think (as person who lived in Minsk for 27 years POV and studied in school and university there) that majority of people in Belarus are not interested in any form of Belarusian language projects. Sorry for remind this fact, but sad truth is better then sweet self-deception. --EugeneZelenko 14:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Long time all languages developed without norms. Developed on personal sensations of native speakers (separate people). More recently (to historical measures) there were strict language norms. Strict norms of the Belarus language have appeared only in the beginning of 20 centuries - "classical" norms. In 1930 years on political grounds "classical" norms have been replaced "academic". The Belarus language has not changed. The Belarus speech can be written down on "classical" or on the "academic" norms - to Byelorussians it will be well clear. Distinctions between norms are not significant. Who to you prevents to write on "academic" to norms in be:? 2. It is a political question. Initiating bel: you initiate discussion of a political question. 3. Norms do not differ with lexicon and a pronunciation. Norms slightly differ with rules of transfer to writings softness and hardness of sounds, and also rules of transfer of foreign words. The fact in that there are two norms, is people which consider correct first or second norm. Byelorussians perfectly will understand all written both on the first, and on the second norm. The majority of Byelorussians cannot distinguish the first norm from the second norm. 4. The situation with "ё" is similar to a situation with two norms of the Belarus language. One speak, that is necessary "ь", and others speak, that is not necessary "ь" - however "ь" nothing changes. One speak, that is necessary "е", and others speak, that is necessary "э" - however nothing changes it. The majority of Byelorussians does not know, that there are two norms and cannot distinguish the first norm from the second norm. 5. be: it is created by the first - it is necessary to respect with work of compatriots which two years work. I wish to explain. If bel: it has been created by the first I would express against creation be:. I against two separate Belarus projects. I for one general Belarus project (it is possible with two subprojects). 6. Well. --MaximLitvin 14:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Support nl:Boudewijn Idema, 13:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose - If the problem is the administrator of be:Wiki, then you should have the admin changed, instead of wasting common space and work. Both styles can coexist in a sigle language. Nobody speaks Chaucer's english anymore, but that does not keep people from publishing it in the en:Wikipedia. So it should be for the opposite situation. If not so, then you have a weird admin structure in be:wikipedia, not two different languages. I believe that there must be a way to obtain an indipendent Wiki authority to impose a minimal democracy in be:wiki, instead of starting up a confusing secession. bertodsera 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, we are not speaking about two different languages, but the archaic system with a lot of polonisms (as for example kelnerka, pastarunak), supported by nacionalists and rusofobes, with some weird orthography and orthoepics. Please, tell us where are we to write (where's that Board of Trustees?). trasianka editor 21:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; the orthographical differences between the varied types of Belarussian can hardly be as big as those between Cotentinais and Jèrriais, and yet we all manage to get along and coexist (with currently two standards, and the potential for at least three) on the Norman Wikipedia. (Examples would be the words "clioche" and "clloque"; "itou" and "étout", "achteu" and "à chu jouo", etc. Cotentinais and Jèrriais even use two completely different standards of capitalization.) One possible solution for your differences may be to include two versions of every page, such as the Norman pages clloque and clioche. The Jade Knight 09:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems wise ;) What do you think about it? D_T_G 18:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. I've s-tagged my opposition temporarily....[reply]
  • As for now we creates redirects in alternative spelling. Duplicating contents is possible, but some problems will arise: who will synchronize content and where interwiki should be placed. Redirects to categories is not working (see bug 3311, big Commons trouble). Templates could contain both spellings and right one could be chosen with conditional template (I did so in one of latest infoboxes). --EugeneZelenko 14:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't speak Belarusian. However, two things are for sure: 1. we have a Wikipedia reserved for (modern, not some ancient form) Belarusian. 2. If some users there are using a different standard than the official one or - worse - are preventing other users from writing in that standard, creating a new Wikipedia is not an appropriate solution. Please try to solve this problem internally within the be-WP. I think Jade Knight's above suggestion is one worth being considered. 99% of all Wikipedians are intelligent, reasonable folks so I think it should be possible to bring about a sound solution. If everything should fail, however, please post a message to the Wikipedia-l mailing so that some neutral outsiders can assist in finding a compromise. Arbeo 15:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose of course no! I am belarusian and I want to speak real belarusian language, wich is not beaten by soviet ideologists..
Meaningless quasi-political discourse. We do not discuss politics here, we try to make useful wikipedia section for people. By the way, signature is always welcomed. - Ivan Sidorsky 12:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. First of all, I do not think that the modern spelling, artificially created by communists for a single reason of brining Belarusian to Russian standards has the right to exist. Besides that, it's obvious that the "taraškievica" is the modern choice for those, for whom Belarusian is a live language (not those who only see it during Belarusian classes at school or univercity). The transition to the proper spelling is the question of time. Second, why should we split the effort? Our cooperation is required in order to revive Belarusian language, and the spelling conflict does not good. Juras14 13:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How funny! So if something was "artificially created by communists" (say, an artificial satellite or a house, builded after the last horrible war) it can not be used by "modern men and women", right? All of your opposes are based on political connotations and misapprehensions like: "Beware of Red Communists!" and "Russians are coming!". The only way to merge our efforts is to split Belarusian section to allow us to contribute to wikipedia. It will help to revive Belaruisian language also. Or do you think we must revive your language version only? It hardly can be the basis for partnership. - Ivan Sidorsky 13:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Of course, this idea is crap. First of all because be: is NOT "arhaic" and so on, it is updated in BOTH spellings! So you can always write in your preferred spelling into usual be: Wikipedia, and there is no reason to create any other wikipedia just because of writing system. --Monk 14:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC) (en:Monkbel, be:Monk)[reply]
  • Oppose.
    • 1) My personal impression is that Taraškievica is the very preferred writing system of active Belarusian speakers. It is the Narkamaŭka that tends to be the dying Belarusian language because it is used mostly by back-to-USSR-university theoreticals and school language teachers - the people who never actually speak Belarusian outside the classroom. People who speak Belarusian in every-day life definately prefer Taraškievica as the purer version of the language. Just check the Belarusian-speaking blogosphere to see that 90% use Taraškievica (with more or less Narkamaŭka elements).
    • 2) Narkamaŭka was created in 1933 under Soviet occupation - actually, it was nothing but russifying the Taraškievica, a language tradition formed in the 19th century. It wasn't a different version of the language basing on other dialects - it was simply cutting differences between Belarusian and Russian aiming to assimilate Belarusians. There were further russification steps planned (p.e. весна instead of вясна, цеатр instead of тэатр) that luckily were not realised by the Soviets
    • 3) Yes, Taraškievica is an unofficial writing system - but still, it has been codified in the Беларускі клясычны правапіс published last year. These rules are accepted by main Taraškievica-using media: Radio Free Europe Belarusian edition, Naša Niva, Radio Polonia Belarusian edition etc and by the regular users. By the time this standart will push aside various marginal language versions.
    • 4) The differences between T and N are, frankly speaking, not radical enough for creating a whole new Wiki. Main problems are writings of foreign words and the usage of ь. There is not even a huge diference in pronounciation. Come on, we do not have separate Wikis for British English and American English, do we?
    • 5) be: is the smallest Slavic Wikipedia except the tiny Kashub language version. Languages with much less "official" speakers (Slovene, Slovak etc) have much larger Wikis than we do. Shouldn't we better develop the one Belarusian language wiki we have (even though it is far from ideal in many aspects) instead of dividing our potential?
    • 6) be: is created for both Belarusian writing systems. The rules say, that both Taraškievica and Narkamaŭka are welcome there. I admit that maybe there should be more discipline and more attention and respect to Narkamaŭka users - and I really propose to discuss the topic "at home" and in our common Belarusian language :) --Czalex 20:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you afraid of the plan to create a wikipedia in Present Belarusian language? We do not prevent you from developing your language section, so why do you reject this possibility for us? Perhaps, it will be obvious how weak Taraškievica's positions are. American radio, Polish radio, and tiny emigrant newspaper on the one hand, and whole Belarus on the other. I respect minorities but not aggressive ones. Make your archaic be.-section, and let us make our own. It will be democratically. - Ivan Sidorsky 13:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friend, where did you see fear in my comment? Moreover, try to answer any of my arguments what you didn't do. Nasa Niva is not a "tiny emigrant newspaper", unless it will be closed down by the Lukašenka regime. Uchite matchast. Very few people who speak Belarusian at home use Narkamaŭka! And archaic is the exact word for it and not for Taraškievica.--Czalex 05:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not your friend. There is a great difference between us: my ancestors fought against Nazism, and I respect Soviet heritage, as well as the majority of Belarusians. We cannot be friends, we cannot have common things. End. -- Ivan Sidorsky 08:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to say that people who support Classical Belarusians are fascists or something along those lines, then do so. Here's something to think about: Janka Kupala has an awesome poem called "Zydy" ("Jews", not "Yids"). In modern Russian it is considered an offensive term. I bet you think that Kupala was an anti-Semit. Well, you are wrong. Kupala was a good friend of Zmitrok Biadulia whose real name was Samuil Plaunik. If you have not understood it from his real name he was far from being of any Slavic descent. Moreover, he was one of the biggest supporters of Belarusian statehood in 1918. So shut it, and don't accuse unless you know for sure. --Wolny 00:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ignore your rudeness. As for Nazism, I surely say not about language, but about certain attempts to justify this criminal ideology made by your friends whom I regrettably know pretty well. Your precautious notice about Mr. Plaunik will not save you if things to bad. -- Ivan Sidorsky 09:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only person in Belarus (besides neo-Nazis) who tried to justify Nazism was Lukashenka. I am a little on the lazy side to look for the exact quote, date, and the newspaper, but it was circa 1996 in an interview to a German newspaper where he stated that not everything was bad under Hitler in Germany. I am not even mentioning how they built a stadium on an old Jewish cemetery in Hrodna and tore down the oldest synagogue in Miensk (a registered historical architecture landmark) a few years ago. I am sorry to bring politics in here, but I was not the first one to do so. --Wolny 04:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your President is the consecutive anti-nazist. You just dislike him, it's obvious. -- Ivan Sidorsky 11:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Nasa Niva may be a small newspaper comparing to Belarus Segodnya (former Soviet Byelorussia) just because nobody forces to subscribe to it, but it is definately not "emigrant newspaper", and that is not mentioning that it is the oldest newspaper in the country. By the way, you forgot to mention "a useless literary journal" that does not have an equivalent published in official Belarusian. Why don't you give examples of literary and academic use of official Belarusian beyond school and university curriculum, or any other application of the official spelling? Even Lukasenka's website does not bother having a Belarusian version! --Wolny 00:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As to my humble opinion, be: Wiki (as well as a number of contibutors in it) is not so big to split it between two separate projects. The splitting of existing be: Wiki community to two new parts can just kill them both. --Shao 13:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just the contrary. Creating a new section will revitalize both (at least in a form of competition). But what is more important, today a very small sub-cultural group tries to speak in the name of the entire nation, and so the much bigger part of Belarusian people has no voice in wikipedia. It would be morally proper if you could change your opinion to support, please. Otherwise wikipedia will have only a small odd section in the language which is not Belarusian really. -- Ivan Sidorsky 08:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did try you to contribute to be: at all (and where did you contribute at all)? I'll repeat my words again: nobody prevents you to write articles on official spelling on be: and nobody will change your spelling to classic without your approval.
If you prefer to play politics here, you are free to do so. But please don't use loud words like whole Belarus, entire nation and etc.
EugeneZelenko 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know it is absolutely impossible for educated people to write into that section dirtied with ungrammatical experiments. Will you make interface grammatically correct to allow us participate? Please, do not show your unconvincing bureaucratic fears. People of Belarus are forced to contribute to Russian, English etc sections because of your determination to support helpless sectarian attitudes. Sorry. -- Ivan Sidorsky 07:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that the guys who propose a separate wiki based on a sovietized narkamauka spelling are not really interested in it and would not maintain it. They rather want to destroy the existing one, and that explains their tirades here, in the English part of Wikipedia.

Czalex is right – the real archaic language is narkamauka. Modern-day Belarusian speakers rarely use it, and moreover, it does not develop. Narkamauka petrified with the collapse of the USSR, and the new wave of Belarusian literature, Belarusian-language publications prefer taraskievica as an authentic Belarusian norm reflecting our phonetics. Taraskievica is vibrant. Last year’s codification of it reflects its development and growth. It is widely used by the youth and intellectuals, whereas some old school language teachers resort to narkamauka, as they have to teach it to students who either choose to speak Russian or adopt taraskievica – the speak of modern Belarus. Narkamauka is not natural and russified, and this evokes repugnance. I can call many brilliant modern-day literati using taraskievica. And can you recall any worthy ones adhering to narkamauka. I doubt it. So again, I assert that the discourse is inane. Ok, you create your own soviet-style wiki. For how long will you run it? I bet it’ll die in about a month.

  • Oppose - First, stop interchanging terms and mixing up the facts! Narkamauka & Tarashkevica as well as Lacinka are simply three codified spelling systems. The grammar is the same for all of them. Yes, Taraskievic wrote a book called "Taraskievic's Grammar", but it was the first grammar book of Belarusian ever published. There were no substantial changes to grammar rules after that. The Soviet reform changed spelling and allowed to use words borrowed from Russian. Nevertheless, the "polonized" equivalents were still in dictionaries and/or used by the general public. Give me an example of a "polonism" that exists in Classical Belarusian, but does not exist in the official one. Rovar (bicycle) is an English word (rover).
Second, most of those who do use Belarusian in everyday life use the classical language with few variations of pronounciation and spelling. This concerns only words borrowed from Germanic languages, Latin, and Greek. Viacorka's last year's publication mainly concerned spelling of those words. It did not change the grammar. The percentage of everyday Belarusian speakers who use the official version is small. It is even smaller given the total number of people who know the language.
Third, Classical Belarusian is the accepted language of modern Belarusian literature and music. A major literary journal ARCHE uses both spellings for texts published, but the staff uses Classical Belarusian. Official Belarusian is rarely used in music for the simple reason that "official musicians" prefer Russian over native Belarusian, and only rock-musicians who miraculously happen to be in the "nationalistic" opposition use Classical Belarusian.
Fourth, a person who uses official Belarusian can perfectly understand a person using Classical Belarusian and vice versa. The differences concern spelling, but reading rules are the same. It does not take a lot of time neither it is hard to get accustomed to reading Classical Belarusian for a person who has always used the official version.
Fifth, there are handmade neologisms in every language. That is the whole concept of neologisms - creation of new words that describe new concepts. It is a usual practice for languages to borrow words from other languages and adapt them grammatically. Unfortunately, Slavic languages have rules of creation of words that significantly differ from Germanic and Romance languages, thus making it easier to borrow a word than to create a new one. If one looks at Russian technical jargon one will find tons of borrowed words. However, being a purist, I prefer creating words with Slavic roots for Belarusian where possible.
A little note on Trasianka. It is a non-codified mixture of Russian and Belarusian, which appeared when native Belarusian speakers got exposed to Russian-speaking environment. Given the similarity of languages it came to be Russian with heavy Belarusian language unlike Spanglish where both English and Spanish words are used equally, but with Spanish grammar. Having Wiki in Trasianka has no sense for it would be a waste of time for pure entertainment of readers. If one is so desperate to read Wiki in Trasianka, open a Russian article, copy it, and paste it into this form.
P.S. If anyone desires to get personal on the issue, I dare you! Just do not forget to strap on before being blown out of water. --Wolny 23:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WEAK OPPOSE. I don’t have anything against Soviet spelling (narkamauka) per se, as long as we keep the politics out of it. And I don’t see a need for another Wikipedia version, because (1) the two spelling systems are very-very close. It's the same language, just the spelling rules are a little bit different; (2) Probably 99% of differences between the Classical and Soviet orthography can be automatically converted by a simple programming script (replacing soft signs, soft/hard l’s, e vs ie, etc.).

But even if the community decides to have a separate version for the Soviet spelling (which I find bizarre). I don't really oppose it that strongly, because it's still our language, it's just spelled a little bit differently in some cases. Let them spell that way, if they want, though I find it a bit destructive that they want to do it in a separate Wikipedia (political, not linguistic decision?)

P.S. Frankly speaking, I'm much more concerned about the fact that certain Russian contributors on the English Wikipedia have been butchering Belarus-related articles on WP in the last year, deleting factual information and inserting pro-imperial, pro-Russian, pro-Soviet POV. See discussion here, for example: http://www.br23.net/en/2006/04/29/english-wikipedia-belarus/ --Br23net 14:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for understanding. I share your views that Belarus-related articles must be more factual and unbiased. Having two diffirent Belarus Wikipedias and so - more possibilities (more people, views etc) to write - we'll be able to make sure that Belarus topics are described correcttly. -- Ivan Sidorsky 09:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that 2 Belarusian Wikipedias will help to create more NPOV articles on Belarusian language. It'll be 2 different "NPOV" based on views of users. It easily to predict which side will be taken by official spelling Belarusian Wikipedia :-). Definitely not neutral. --EugeneZelenko 14:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are prejudiced towards future official spelling Belarusian Wikipedia :). Everything will be good for both sides, I promise. -- Ivan Sidorsky 11:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the problem of spelling difference between (so called) «soviet» and (so called) «classical» versions of the Belarusian. It’s the problem of abidance by grammatical rules. There’s (and there could be) only one official (academic) grammatical rules of the Belarusian. You say that’s rules of dead language. You say nobody uses one. So let you apply for grammar reform. Because no revival for language outside education system, and only official grammar could be used in schools and universities (do you like it or not).
P.S. As soon as grammar reform is officially adopted, I start keeping new rules. Until this there’s no other written Belarusian except present (soviet, narkomauka … as you like). -- Semashko (N) 11:32:, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you understand the difference between "grammar" and "spelling" (orthography)? Once again, there is only one set of grammar rules in Belarusian. Meanwhile, there are three ways of writing the language down (2 based on Cyrillic alphabet, and one based on Latin alphabet). That is all. Please do not argue about something you apparently are not qualified to argue. --Wolny 04:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean “spelling” as partition of “grammar”. Probably that’s mistake, but not only my one. Anyway thank you for your elaboration. And I repeat again: that’s not spelling difference between s.c. classical and s.c. soviet spelling. That’s difference between literate language and something else. Semashko (N) 12:04:, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

WEAK OPPOSE. Bad idea. The issue is valid, but such cure would be worse than disease.

I think it's the Be: Wiki core team who's in wrong here, and it's there where changes are to be made principally, if at all.

The very purpose of native language Wikipedias is availability to the «speakers» of native languages – that is, people capable of reading text in native language.

To comprehend situation with Belarusian language, some background info is necessary:

For 70+ years there exist standard rules of Belarusian orthography (1933/1959). Since end of 1980-s there exists group of people promoting reverting some of the standard orthography rules to their pre-1933 counterparts. The very same people insist on naming the resulting set of rules «classic orthography» or «tarashk`ievitsa» (from name of Tarashkievich, author of 1918 grammar) while referring to the standard grammar «nark`amauka» (pejorative from «nark`am», abbreviated Belarusian for «peoples commissariat»).

Essentially, text in alternative orthography contains an extra number of «soft signs», serving as pronounciation hint, and borrowed words are written down in manner more resembling Polish language.

Obviously, lexics of Belarusian language doesn't depend per se on orthography used. However, proponents of alternative generally show greater inclination to borrow lacking words and grammar concepts from Polish (rarer, Czech or Ukrainian).

Using this alternative orthography is fashionable (and, sometimes, mandatory) in certain social groups and political organisations. However, besides those social structures, this orthography is unpopular, if at all known.

Now, for the problem proper:

Person coming to Be: Wikipedia is greeted by pages done completely in alternative orthography. All rules and servicing pages are in alternative orthography. Rules in Be: counterpart of How_to_edit say: «Orthography – classical is preferred (although narkamauka is too allowed)». Then, while initially Be: rules for orthography (Вікіпэдыя:Правапіс) say that «any orthography is allowed [here]: classical, «narkomauka», latin», further clause forbids «change of orthography without permit of original author of article or administration» and strongly recommends «keeping one [initially encountered] version of orthography both in article and in its links».

Considering that administrator and (majority of?) core team are vocal evangelists of alternative orthography, and that there is already significant number of pages and stubs done in alternative orthography, users of standard Belarusian orthography are put in very peculiar position. Not only do they have to accept the role of «lesser Belarusians» from beginning (see formulating of rules, biased names for orthographies, see also samples of rhetoric in this very discussion), but they are also required to jump much higher than «good Belarusians» before they could even start to participate.

What would be the possible solutions?

It's common knowledge that Belarusian is very unwell. While about 8 million claim it's their native language, this doesn't translate to equivalent number of people actually speaking Belarusian.

However, Belarusian is (and was) mandatory subject in state schooling with est. 75 to 100 thousand students graduating yearly. Virtually anybody is able to hold simple conversation in Belarusian or understand more complicated subject if written. But what overwhelming majority of people readily knows is standard Belarusian orthography, and requiring knowledge of additional orthography of them meets with incomprehension, at best.

I suggest discussing following initial course of action:

- replace all biased references to orthographies («classic», «narkamauka», etc.) with neutral terms (e.g., «standard» and «alternative»);

- cancel rules preferring non-standard rules over standard;

- cancel rules mandating permission acquiring in order to make changes

- enter clause giving text in standard orthography absolute right of precedence over non-standard orthographies

- official framework (rules, service pages etc.) ought to be rewritten in standard orthography

--Yury Tarasievich 194.158.202.141 16:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree some of these suggestions (but discussion will be useful in be:):
  • There should not be a mentioning of favorable spelling in rules.
  • Rules to change spelling of stubs could be weakened: like if humans didn't touch stub during month, but if good article will be created in different spelling. For big articles permission still should be granted to avoid "spelling wars".
EugeneZelenko 14:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point completely.
Using standard orthography over non-standard isn't matter of somebody's charity or adequate timing.
The implied right of contributor is to write in standard orthography as soon as one pleases, as far as public service Wikipedia is concerned. And if that isn't clear enough to Be: rulemakers yet, then it should be explicitly mentioned.
Truely wishing to «avoid «spelling wars», one just shouldn't introduce extra spellings. It's that simple! Now, current Be: rules were obviously crafted so, as to discourage writing in standard orthography, as much as possible, which not only invites «spelling wars» as such, but breaks Wikipedia rules, too.
As for «discussion will be useful in be:» -- too late for that. I guess it was tried before – and to what end? But issue is out of closet now, and ought to be resolved here -- in reasonable timeframe.
As a side note: separate mentioning «lacinka» in rules isn't correct, as L. is only a table (several different tables, in fact) for transcribing Belarusian text.
Yury Tarasievich 17:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can see now, Mr. Tarasievich, why we decided to make a separate Belarusian Wikipedia. Perhaps it's a bitter cure but it's the only possible.
Your support (even weak) would be much more suitable.
Anyway, we appreciate your effort to explain Be.-administrators' mistake to them and their followers. -- Ivan Sidorsky 12:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only possible cure, really? Study the Wikipedia rules (original English, of course). Cure the real cause of your problem (discriminating rules of Be:). Then, contribute! That is, if it's indeed contributing in Belarusian you are interested in :). Yury Tarasievich 20:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is more realistic. :) -- Ivan Sidorsky 12:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion means to make official spelling a favorable spelling in be:. I don't think that this is completely neutral solution to current problem which will satisfy both sides.
As for łacinka - there was proposal to implement automatic translation in MediaWiki software, unfortunately not implemented yet.
EugeneZelenko 14:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my suggestion means precisely that. What's your idea of «neutral solution», then? Current rules, perhaps? Discriminating against orthography everybody knows in favour of some «God's gift», which nobody, besides interest group, knows, recognizes or uses, more has no obligation to do so?
This set-up, obviously, was created deliberately, it's a clear breach of the general rules on neutrality, and it's time to stop that. Yury Tarasievich 20:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The framework for current Belarussian Wikipedia is created in alternate spelling. Every new unit placed is embedded into this framework through categories in alternate spelling. As soon as you create a new category in official language, - it is deleted (!) and some minutes later replaced by the same category in alternate version by Administrator (in my cases -> EugeneZelenko). How many active users are involved into the project? 5-15. The quality of information leaves much to be desired. Most of the articles are stubs about a year. Exception - articles from Belarussian Encyclopedia copied & pasted into the project with the permission of the author (and written in official language) plus a small amount of some other articles. There is a feeling that the current Be-Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for masses, a less useful project for educational aims, partly due to spelling anarchy and partly due to the current quality of knowledge collected. The current plattform is the marginalized project of a very small community. Still waiting for solution... Alexander Gouk 19:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not blame other for your own sins (stubs and quality). Nobody prevent you from writing full-scale articles and checking fact/spelling/terminology with external sources. --EugeneZelenko 20:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that at the beginning of the project you were given the rights to maintain Belarussian Wikipedia primary and mainly in alternate spelling and to embed official language just as a marginal and discriminated part of it. But you did... Were you as administrator authorized to do that? There were lots of opposers who raised the objection, but brushed off after futile discussions and left the project forever. The community (only 5-15 active users) doesn't grow, mainly because of the currently maintained policy... Alexander Gouk 21:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may also blame administrators of be: in overall situation with Belarusian language in Belarus (not primary language in education, mass media), Internet access in Belarus and, of course, creating classic spelling at first, and so on and so on... What is be: now is reflection of contributions: on both official and classic spelling. Just accept this fact. --EugeneZelenko 22:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. You, as Be: administrator, are endorsing Be: rules which clearly discriminate users on ground of compliance with your minority interest group POV (writing in alternative Belarusian orthography). These rules were introduced with precisely same discriminating clauses when Be: was created, so contributions aren't the issue here. And that's all there's to it.
So, are you, as Be: administrator, going to do something about this? Yury Tarasievich 09:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you and other participants of this discussion to discuss be: rules on be: to find solution which will satisfy both sides (supporters of official and classic spellings), since all rules must be accepted by all members of be: community. But please do not propose to replace one discrimination with another. --EugeneZelenko 13:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsence again. Rules do not have to «satisfy» «both sides». However, rules have to comply with general rules.
It's good you admit you have discrimination embedded in current Be: rules. Now, if you'd just explain in tangible terms why do you call «replacing with another discrimination» my request to give absolute priority to standard orthography, which is the literary norm of Belarusian language, considering that:
* standard orthography is what everybody knows from school, so we talk 8 millions of consumers;
* alternative orthography is a private project of Mr.Viachorka and reflects private views of interest group he leads; this group is small;
* nobody elected neither you nor Mr.Viachorka nor members of his interest group to «represent» Belarusian speaking community;
* nobody gave you nor Mr.Viachorka nor members of his interest group the right to decide who is «better» Belarusian and who's not;
There are some norms complying with which is rather mandatory, like, for example, obeying literary norm of language. Perhaps, you and your crowd would be more happy with separate community just for yourselves? Something like «The Very and Only True Belarusian»? For in your replies here and in Be: talk pages you give every impression you and your crowd just aren't interested in presence of anybody not sharing your private point of view.
And please keep in mind this isn't private site of you and your pals or pocket newspaper of some party or charity to the world, but service operated under certain conditions of use, which you, as you just admitted yourself, are breaking.
Yury Tarasievich 17:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't write nonsense too. Nobody in be: decide who is True Belarusian. Everybody have right to choose their favorite spelling.
Try to remember own i18n at mova dot org experience as reminder of popularity of official spelling in people who would like to contribute into open source projects like Wikipedia.
EugeneZelenko 18:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not possible to "choose the favourite spelling" everywhere. Wikipedia is not such place, for example.
My «experience in i18n» isn't grim, and is irrelevant here anyway.
Now, could you please shuffling words and relevantly answer claims I'm making about your rules? Yury Tarasievich 18:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rules of be: are discussed on be: by community. If you want to change them - discuss them there.
I can't add anything to my words. Your claims reflects your own (I could say "religious") point of view about "single right" spelling. Other people may have opposite POV (like official spelling is communists-rusificators project and so on). In any case steps toward each other are necessary to improve situation.
EugeneZelenko 13:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you try to hide something?
I'm presenting you with reasons why the issue of «Present Belarusian» per se (which I'm opposing) emerged here in the first place.
I pin-point several clauses in Be: rules which I see as breaching WP policy and giving the issue of «Present Belarusian» (which I'm opposing) the validity in the first place. I present the concise factual background and do not touch any irrelevant matters.
But you are answering with virtually nothing, not denying and not admitting. You just invite me to Be: pages to «talk». Of course, Belarusian can't be read by everyone and there are several hush-ups of discussion on precisely same issue there, made by you and your pals.
However, to be on the correct side, I will, of course, present my changes to the rules there. All in good time. Be sure to solicite more «support» for the «right cause» at each and every unrelated location, you may get unexpected results. How do you think I knew about this discussion in the first place? :)
And be so kind to abstain from making pejorative orations on «religiousness», «communists-russificators» and alike. 'Enlightemed' freedom fighters, you aren't. Yury Tarasievich 09:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to hide anything (just compare with this request - it was not even announced on be: by originator).
My position about rules of be: is simple. Meta users will not write too much on Belarusian language, contributors of be: will. So spelling rules of be: wiki depends only on its contributors.
I didn't make any religious claims so far (read all my posts here), and will not make them. I accept both spellings and respect their supporters (but not extremists with single right one idea).
EugeneZelenko 14:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Study the guidelines. Take action. Be constructive. :) Yury Tarasievich 20:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT - I studied Belarussian in school and university, some of my relatives are speaking it. First tried to participate in be: wiki in middle-2005 i found it quite irritating for me to read through lots of ь-s and soft letters (Нідэрлянды - бр-р-р-р-р), and what is even more dissapointing - vagueness with categories and articles names with some named one way, orhers the other, constant debates with other users on the "right" way of spelling and so on. So currently i choose to spend my time in more productive way contributing to ru/en wiki's. If there'd be an automatic translation tool or seperate wiki for the Belarussian language that i know - i'd be eager to participate --Redline 01:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem is incompatibility of the current Be: rules with general WP policy, and not amount of anybody's participation, and not anybody's likes or dislikes, and not anybody being "good Belarusian" or not. I'm continuing the discussion of the issue in Talk of Be: frontpage. Speak out. Yury Tarasievich 11:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You participated in be:? You have left two brief messages at a forum. These messages were in Russian language. Very not clearly "бр-р-р-р-р". You do not like the Belarus language or the letter "я"? For example, "Інфлянты" it is written with "я" in "standard" spelling. Too "бр-р-р-р-р"? --MaximLitvin 06:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As i said earlier i started participating in be\ru\en wikies in middle-2005, i wasnt registred at that time so my two messages in the forum at the end of 2005 is is definitely not all my contributions there. I'm not a linguist nor a historian and clearly dont want to start the debates with you here all over again about like or dislike of using Я. My point is that i would like to participate in be wiki as well as in ru using in language that i've known all my life and that my grandparents were talking when they were with me (it is a normal Bel. language for me and everybody i know). I think for most users the main reason for staying with wikipedia is a fun of sharing their knowledge and learning something new and not continious battles, debates and disputes. Thats why i have ~1500 edits and dosens of articles created in ruwiki and two posts in forum in bewiki. --Redline 13:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wonder how are you participating in ru: now if you dislike continious battles, debates and disputes? There are many of them last time and most of them are far away from knowledge.
Again, nobody prevents you to participating in be: using spelling which you know.
EugeneZelenko 15:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At us in be: there are no battles. Everyone can write such spelling as which it considers correct. I assure you, the Belarus language of your grandmother does not depend on spelling. To more constructive will write some clauses for be:, than to write "бр-р-р-р-р" without the reason. --MaximLitvin 17:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>> I found it quite irritating for me to read through lots of ь-s and soft letters (Нідэрлянды - бр-р-р-р-р) --Redline

  • піць “ФінлАндыю”
  • падымаць лАмант
  • глядзець у калАндар
  • упрыгожваць елку гірлАндай
  • і пеністая марская хвалА
  • на глАнцавай паперы
  • рэжа цыркулАрная піла
  • ідзе кампілАцыя праграмы
  • пасьля транслАцыі матчу
  • стымулАцыя клітора і сімулАцыя эякулАцыі.

Адсюль:

--193.111.128.222 12:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Belarusian Wikipedia does not favor classic spelling over official (present days). It contains articles on both spellings. There were some edit wars based on spelling at beginning of 2005, but since that time both spellings coexists peacefully without major problems. Belarusian speaking Internet community is not so big, so further spelling dividing will do more harm then good. Kiryl Nieviarouski
  • Conditional Oppose That the existing be-wiki modernises itself to the present spellings thus blending the two systems. Its like having a separate Ru-wiki with yat, izhetska and hard signs. That is more than rediculous. What is really apalling is that these Belarusian Nationalists are trying to pollute en-wiki with translits of titles that are not known ANYWHERE outside Belarus. Kuban Cossack

support if even a linguist will attest to its existance, even if he thinks it doesnt have a written form, but by all means lets alfabetize it and stop its illiteracy i mean cherokee had no written form before sequoyah made one up by analogy with english from the colonizers and i highly doubt anyone here will claim that cherokee isnt a language, what if it had no written form today? would you deny it, i think not and the same thing goes for this langauge even if the 10 pages dont exist lets make a home page and nine articles for it in its own wikipedia i say !!! Qrc2006 01:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brněnský hantec Wikipedia

submitted verification final decision
This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 22:02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Brněnský hantec (— ISO—)
  • Editing community: Tintin (NP)
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: —
  • External links:
    —
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

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

Support - I support the idea as well and I would definitely contribute to it. FerdinandH 19:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tintin - are you a Moravian? Can you tell me if you have heard about Hanacky janzyk? And about Brnensky hantec -> how many native speakers? Czech dialects are interesting, I have already heard lacky from neighbourhood of Moravia-Silesia - so from my neighbourhood, Cieszyn Silesian (a Pole, but feeling a child of culture of three nations including Czech :), D T G 22:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I have heard about it. Hanácký jazyk (or hanáčtina) is spoken mainly in the neighbourhood of Olomouc and Prostějov (Central Moravia, we may say). Yes, I am native Moravian but currently I live in Straßburg. How many native speakers of Brněnský hantec? All habitants of Brno to some degree (approximately 500,000). Needless to say, that elder people command this language much better than the youth. (Another reason why to start Wikipedia in Brněnský hantec!) --Tintin 05:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tintin, can you give me some links to get know better Hanacky and Brnensky? I'll try to inform one Moravian I know from cs-wiki about this (yet) uninformal proposal :) Zdravim, D T G 09:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try to browse this on-line dictionary. No explanation, but gives a clue how much the languages differ. --slady 11:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I am a Prague citizen not Brno and I know only a few words in hantec. Though, I'd like to point out some facts. The language has no code defined in ISO 639-1. The language has no oficial standard and I'm not sure whether there is some unofficial. I think there would be disputes among Brno citizens about what is the correct form. Moreover, the city has only about 370 thousand citizens, not all of them having Internet access and by far not all of them speaking hantec. Is it enough to build a quality Wikipedia? Establishing a new Wikipedia for hantec would only drain potential editors from Czech Wikipedia. That's not good. On the other hand, hantec Wictionary would be lovely! --Egg 12:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Norman may have as few as 25,000 speakers, and yet our wikipedia is doing very well because we're dedicated to it (already over 200 articles). However, we should make sure that people would be devoted to this project before assigning it a Wikipedia. The Jade Knight 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hantec is, very roughly, Czech equivalent to en:Cockney and even more pointless to found its own Wikipedia than thet would be. --Maly ctenar 15:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC) [I think this comment is supposed to be counted as oppose - Arbeo 18:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Comment: seeing quite slow progress of Czech Wiki and their lack of people I do not give hantec Wiki slightest chance to get over initial 20 pages. Pavel Vozenilek 20:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC) [I think this comment is supposed to be counted as oppose - Arbeo 18:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)][reply]

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

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

  • Oppose Wikipedia in dialects is stupid (sorry). Nobody need them. It would be better, the Supporters would be do more at the Czech Wikipedia. Kenwilliams 19:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not knowing the true nature of the terms 'dialect' and 'language' is very, very stupid (sorry). How dare you mingle what Wikipedia someone should contribute to??! I don't say this request is a good idea, but you really should study the subject better before jumping into cries like these. Caesarion 14:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Is a dialect. No need for more dialects--Taichi - (あ！) 04:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nl:Boudewijn Idema, 20:46 , 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Caesarion 14:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC) 'Hantec' is, of course, a clearly defined concept: the vernecular language (mind: language refers here to any linguistic system, whether it is considered a separate language or not) of one city. However, I don't think a Wikipedia in it would be a good idea. It is relatively close to standard Czech, its scope is confined to one city (which wouldn't be so bad if Hantec was a totally different language, but it ain't), it has no ISO code, no recognition - just a combination of these matters make a Wikipedia in it little feasable. Please consider broadening your scope to the Moravian dialects together, which would probably be more successful (I can't promise, however, that I will support in Wikipedia in Moravian). Caesarion 14:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Hantec is exactly indefinable dialect, that has no complete word-stock, that has maximum only several hudreds native speaker. And I am afraid, proposer and all here voting adherents don't speak hantec. Cinik 09:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Til Eulenspiegel 22:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - An encyclopedia written in a city dialect (no matter how special and noteworthy it might be) is hardly in line with Wikipedia's goals. Arbeo 18:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I'm familiar with Moravian language(s). --Ђорђе Д. Божовић 10:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As a joke - fine. As a wiki - stupid. 130.230.1.90 22:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I am of Caesarian's opinion. However, my vote is Oppose until a Test Wiki with at least 50 articles has been created, and a Weak Support once the Test Wiki reaches 150. The Jade Knight 09:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There are more than 10 main dialects based on Czech language. I am living in Brno, but I does not meet any person, that can fully speak in Brněnský hantec. Hantec became very popular thanks to TV spots, that advertising a local brewery. The spots contain many neologisms, because word stock is very poor. Hantec is not well defined, its usage requires own research and therefore it is not good tool to create an encyclopedia. --RuM 10:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Agree with RuM. --Dezidor 13:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, waste of space. Contribute here. Or open a Wikicity, like Caesarion suggested, and give it a shot there. If it's successful, we may migrate it over, but I doubt it will ever get more then a handful of pages. +Hexagon1 (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

en favor Qrc2006 01:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why not open a Wikicity in it? I don't think Hantec is suitable for a Wikipedia, but it is perfectly suited for Wikicities. It is after all the dialect of one city. Caesarion 15:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. The Jade Knight 09:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi Shahmukhi Wikipedia

submitted verification final decision
This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 22:02:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Punjabi (gurumukhi is it's origin[invented])
  • Editing community: Sikh (P)
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: -
  • External links:
    —
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Number of speakers: 300 million
  • Locations spoken: United Punjab

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

Question:I'm not entirely sure I agree with this request. Also, why should Gurmukhi get the pa: domain while Shahmukhi gets the pa-pk: domain??
Answer:Locale data on the CLDR [28] lists only Gurmukhi for pa. Unfortunately , the Pakistan government does not support Punjabi and so it has had no official push in the Shahmukhi (arabic) script. The Indian state of Punjab uses it as an official language in the Gurmukhi script.
There is no greater reason to have Gurmukhi under 'pa' other than it's already in use there, with a partially translated interface. Indeed, more people speak Punjabi in Pakistan than in India (although few are literate in the language in Pakistan, no matter what script because Urdu is the official language). Pakistan has made it its aim to exterminate all of the native languages in the country in favour of Urdu, which incidentally is not native to the country :) Sukh 17:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can the scripts be converted automatically, similar to what's done on sr and zh? Speakhits 21:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: No, they can't, since the Arabic script is very shorthand-like and leaves all vowels out. Superficially, Devanagari script has a similar approach but it is better suited for the Indian languages than Arabic script is. They're pretty incompatible. Caesarion 09:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Caesarion is correct. Indic abugidas (like Gurmukhi, Devanagari) can be converted to one another (Devanagari to Gurmukhi and back without loss of information), but not so easily to Arabic script. In actual fact, converting from Gurmukhi to Shahmukhi may not be too difficult, but doing it the other way round would cause problems. There is ways of doing it using dictionary look-ups I suppose, but no reliable method exists at the moment.
I think crucially, there is not a one-to-one mapping of characters and in several circumstances it would be impossible to detect which character to use without analysing the context (in terms of the word) it is used in. Sukh 17:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I think it's quite unfair to relegate it to pa-PK. Both Shahmukhi and Gurmukhi are scripts used by millions and millions of Punjabi people. Neither is less important. --Node ue 06:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly wish that were the case. But Punjabi is neither encouraged or extensively used in text form in Pakistan (be it Shahmukhi, Gurmukhi or Latin). I suppose a different code could be "pa-arab" or something similar? Maybe Gurmukhi could move to "pa-guru" aswell? Sukh 21:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I support in principle as I know a number of Punjabi people, but there are so few contributors as it is, that I suggest waiting until a technical solution is developed. There are workings in place like Wikidata that could solve the multiple script problem. I don't see the value in splitting a project with so few contributors, though if you could recruit 30 or so contributors I'd be listening. I recommend just getting by in the meantime with articles in both scripts on the same wiki for now. And no, I haven't had any luck myself so far encouraging those people I know to contribute. - Taxman 15:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately there will be no reliable automatic transliteration that is possible. However, if there is a reliable mechanism for dual scripts in the Wikis, then that's definately a plus - although I'm unsure about the consequences of interwiki linking.
I'm against the idea of waiting for enough people to contribute. There is one user in particular who wishes to start writing Shahmukhi articles and that should be enough. It'll always be more hassle to transfer at a later date. Sukh 21:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't assuming automatic transliteration, just good facilities for multiple scripts, and that is beeing worked on. Having two scripts on the same language isn't that big a problem, just set up a convention to link to the other version of the article, either through a link in the same spot on every article or use a template or a mediawiki message. The right to left and left to right sounds like more of a problem, try filing bug report for that. - Taxman 14:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose; the Punjabi Wikipedia barely has over 40 articles—what are the odds that this would do any better, if even as well? I recommend that articles written in Shahmukhi be included in the Punjabi Wikipedia, if at all possible (we deal with dialects in other Wikipedias, like Normand and Cornish, and the Romani Wikipedia even uses dual orthographies—perhaps it could be used as a model for Punjabi). The Jade Knight 09:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems with having it on the same Wiki, because the software does not provide adequate facilities for both scripts. For example, unless the user signs up and changes their preferences, page layout will still be left-to-right for Arabic readers. Also, there is a complication in terms of interwiki linking - how can you specify two script translations for articles in one wiki? Finally, there is the fact that we will end up with two communities of contributors who will be very unlikely to be able to communicate with each other, unless they resort to romanisation (wow, script number three) or English. Personally I think the excuse of there only being forty articles has nothing to do with the matter. It's a language spoken by nearly 100 million people... as more of them get online you'll get more contributors. Sukh 18:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by two script translations for articles in one wiki. If you mean interwiki linking from another wikipedia, just do [[pa:Shahmukhi title]] and [[pa:Gurmucki title]]. And two communities of editors that both speak the same language is no worse to be on the same project than it is for them to be on separate projects and not communicate at all. And the short answer being if you can get more contributors, you'd get a ton of support votes. I and many others don't see the value of creating projects with few contributors. - Taxman 14:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose: Even if scripts can't be automaticly transliterated, it is still better to find a solution along the lines of zh and sh Wikipedia. Dual-script WPs can be done. --Mkill 12:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I as a speaker of Punjabi in Pakistan as a mother tongue strongly recommend that a Punjabi wikipedia in arabic script should be started. Much of its literature has been created here. And it would be unjust not to allow this.

Khalid Mahmood 16 September 2007

Wikiquote in french

People interested [if native speaker, please mark (N)]:
Language code (ISO 639): fr
Proposed domain: FR.WIKIQUOTE.ORG
Relevant infos:
  • Link to article(s) on the language in an existing Wikipedia: w:fr:Wikiquote
  • Native name(s): Francophones, wikiquoteurs, wikiciteurs ;)
  • Approximate number of speakers: lot of but declining
  • Location(s) spoken: Europe, Africa, Americas, Oceania
  • Closely related languages, if any: w:en:verlan
  • External links to organizations that promote the language: l'Académie
Link to request on a mailing list: maybe wikipedia-fr-l if I retrieve the link

"By Grabthar's hammer, by the sons of Worvan, we shall be avenged."

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]

Support

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]
  • 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]

Oppose

  • 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]

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)[reply]



Hebrew MediaWiki Site (9 support; 1 oppose)

People interested [if native speaker, please mark (N)]:
Language code (ISO 639): he
Proposed domain: http://he.mediawiki.org/
Link to request on a mailing list: There is no one currently

Comments

I suggest a Hebrew MediaWiki site (there are already Hebrew Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikibooks and Wikinews), because it's hard to write an RTL language in an LTR, and with English interface (even if I change the language to Hebrew, the interface remains LTR), MediaWiki site. It's better to seperate the languages, and the Hebrew project will be able to use a Hebrew, and RTL, interface and text.

Thanks. – rotemliss – Talk 16:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a good idea! Idand 20:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support – rotemliss – Talk 09:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC) (N)[reply]
  2. support Idand 09:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC) (N)[reply]
  3. Support: None 04:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC) (N)[reply]
  4. Support --Taichi - (あ！) 05:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Kenwilliams 08:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Troll Refaim 14:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC) (N)[reply]
  7. Support Whaa? 14:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC) (N)[reply]
  8. Support Belgian man (nl na en) 16:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Platonides 16:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Gangleri · Th · T 05:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. --Absar 11:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, could you please explain the opposition? What do you suggest instead? – rotemliss – Talk 11:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

The reason why you ask for a Wikimedia in Hebrew is technical. In the proposal for Multilingual MediaWiki we will get an environment where a page can be completely in Hebrew or English, Hindi or whatever language. One of the things Multilingual MediaWiki will do is to allow for multiple languages in projects like Meta and Commons.

Programming has started. Two developers are working on it. I propose to wait for this new functionality. Thanks, GerardM 20:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is the project, and what will be exist when finished; but let's say it will allow to specify the page language via "uselang" or the preferences, to completely differ the languages and allow everyone to use his language. Let's also say it will allow interwiki within the wiki, using "uselang". Why should someone prefer such a Multilingual wiki and not different wiki sites, can be more easily maintained? In Commons, it should be the same wiki for all the langauges for there should be only one source of shared images; but in MediaWiki site it is not the problem, so there is no need to compress everything in one site. – rotemliss – Talk 07:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I think the Meta should be also Multilingual, like Commons (and it is, but not using the proposed features, and Commons also doesn't, because these features are not exist) – one site where we decide things in diffferent languages (although most of the discussions should be in English, for everyone will be able to understand them – for example, this discussion); but MediaWiki site is not the Meta, and it is mainly a content site, which should be translated. – rotemliss – Talk 07:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource in lithuanian

People interested [if native speaker, please mark (N)]:
Language code (ISO 639): lt (w:en:Lithuanian language)
Proposed domain: LT.WIKISOURCE.ORG
Relevant infos:
  • Link to article(s) on the language in an existing Wikipedia: w:lt:Wikisource
  • Native name(s): Lietuvių
  • Approximate number of speakers: lot of but declining
  • Location(s) spoken: Baltic States, Europe, Australia, Africa, Americas, Oceania
  • Closely related languages, if any: q:lt:User:Redagavimas
  • External links to organizations that promote the language: Atviras Kodas (Open Source, LT)
Link to request on a mailing list: .... "

Wikipedia in Chinglish [0 support, 12 oppose, 1 neutral] and Singlish [7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral]

Chinglish and Singlish are the dialects of English, when Chinglish is spoken in Hong Kong and Mainland China and Singlish is spoken in Singapore. These two languages are formed due to the English colonization in Hong Kong and Singapore and the trading between Chinese and British started from middle 1800s. Oscarcwk 08:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Unnecessary and useless, IMHO. Arbeo 15:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think that is non-sense dialects. --Taichi - (あ！) 14:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Chinglish; Support Singlish. Chinglish is what's known as a "nativised variety" of English. It cannot entirely be called a dialect, but at the same time it is not a creole because it was never a pidgin. I don't support it because the phenomena that are called "Chinglish" range from almost pure English with the occasional particle or cantonese word, to something that's more half-and-half. Singlish, on the other hand, is a fully-formed creole language, drawing words and grammatical structures from English, Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese, Malay, Tamil, and more recently, Mandarin. There is no standard writing system, though; when most people write it, it usually looks somewhat similar to English (but a bit strange), but if you wrote it even slightly phonetically, and if you marked tones (which it does have, although they are only sometimes phonemic, English-origin words are pronounced in a very "singsong" way), it would really demonstrate accurately the uniqueness of Singlish. Singlish as a spoken language bares little resemblance to standard English, in fact English speakers often mistake it for Chinese. So to the opposers, I ask you: Want Wikipedia in Singlish, got? Why oredi dun got!? Can make or not ah??? CAN LAH! --Node ue 02:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Singlish. I am sure Malaysian also understand this dialect of English, even spoken and familiar in Indonesian too lah!. Siti Atiroh 02:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It remains unclair to me whether these variants are spoken as native languages by some people. And even when they are, they might be somewhat unstable (speakers in Hong Kong and Singapore are likely to adept "real" English sooner or later). For now, I am neutral. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 08:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Singlish is definitely used as a native language by many Singaporeans, it is a creole, I don't know about Chinglish. As regards adapting "real english sooner or later", then why do we have an Haitian Creole WP or a Tok Pisin or Bislama WP? Aren't they likely to adapt "real" French or English soon?? We could even extend that to Spanish and Portuguese and Italian, aren't they likely to adopt "real" Latin soon? --Node ue 23:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Chinglish. I am a Chinese in Hong Kong and I speak English not Chinglish. I also don't think there is any "native" Chinglish speakers (in Hong Kong), just Cantonese speakers who are taught English in school. We speak English , write English and in fact "Chinglish" is considered to be wrong, both in schools and the society. --Lorenzarius 08:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Chinglish. Chinglish has not been standardised and nor will it be.GnuDoyng 14:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Chinglish and Support Singlish. As Node has explained, Chinglish is a nativized variety of English (a sort of unstable code switching) while Singlish is a stable creole language on its own right, spoken natively by many Singaporeans (many Singaporeans are in fact bilingual in standard English and Singlish). It is not always mutually intelligible with English. If creoles such as Tok Pisin and Haitian Creole can have Wikipedias I see no reason why Singlish can't. However, I suggest that instead of "Singlish", we have "Malaysian and Singaporean English", in order to avoid the informal term "Singlish" and also be more inclusive to Manglish speakers. -- Ran 19:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Singlish. There are already distinct Singlish/Manglish media content in the form of literature, TV-shows, movies, comics, etc, and they are popular in those societies. Wikipedia should include this language. --Vsion 04:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both - Chinglish per above; Singlish because there's no set way to write in Singlish, besides a little SMS language and lahs and lors here and there. It wouldn't work. NSLE (T+C) 06:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Chinglish, Support Singlish. I've never heard of Chinglish and is not very well known and English speakers in HK and CN speak English NOT Chinglish. As for Singlish, I seriously don't know what to write, but I will try. Singlish is commonly used in Singaporeans and Malaysians everyday lives. --[[:en:User:Terence Ong|Terence Ong]] 12:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Singlish/Manglish, oppose Chinglish. The main thing I'm concerned about is unnecessary forking, but I think actually using Singlish/Manglish might make it more accessible to some audiences. Chinglish is too unstable. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Singlish. Chinglish is lame, lah. Miborovsky 08:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both. Limited audience. Moreover, it would be more kind of a joke instead of a serious reference material, la. (klingon should be deleted too!!!) __earth 08:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Earth, I think you're wrong on at least two points. Yes the audience is limited but that goes for so many other Wikipedias. It surely is a matter of great Anglo-Saxon arrogance to say "your language has too few speakers, we ignore it". Second, a comparision with Klingon is patent nonsense: we're not discussing Wikipedias in fictional n3rd languages, but ones in real languages, one of which is even spoken by real people. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 13:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe but the Singlish is more of a street slang than a proper language. Singlish is not a language but rather, a slang. We could call it creole but it doesn't change the fact that Singlish is simply English with some street words, adapted to local circumtances. It's like having street words such as "yo", "dog", "bling bling" and then we pretend that all those street words along with other typical English words make up a different kind of English. Let's call it hiphoplish for our sake. And then, somebody comes up to Wikipedia and say, let's have a Hiphoplish Wikipedia! And that's what is happening here. __earth 09:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Earth: The fact that Singlish is a basilect does not make it any less of a language. We are not "pretending" that these "street words" make up a "different kind of English", it is a fact that the street pronunciation, street syntax, street vocabulary and street grammar of Singlish do indeed make up a different kind of English. Intrinsically speaking Singlish is no less a language than any other; the fact that Singlish is a basilect has nothing to do with the intrinsic properties of Singlish. And as for Hiphoplish Wikipedia, I don't think it's impossible to have a Ebonics Wikipedia that puts the complex Aspects of Ebonics to good use. Don't diss the verb aspects and remote phase marker of Ebonics, yo. -- Ran 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both. What for leh. Aurora 08:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposes to both requests. There is no Chinglish or Singlish literature, there aren't any encyclopedias or academic literature written in Chinglish or Singlish. In my opinion, even the speakers who speaks Chinglish or Singlish wouldn't want to write an academic corpus (encyclopedia) in Chinglish or Singlish. As far as I know, it is only used on online chats and forums. --Shibo77 09:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Requests for new languages/51-AAA-am

Tokelauan (3 support)

  • Link to request on mailing list:
  • ISO code: tkl
  • Speakers: 4500 in Tokelau, American Samoa, New Zealand and the United States
  • People interested joining: Belgian man
  • Relevant links:
  • Notes/comments:
    • Please, quit requesting languages anonymously without leaving any contact information.
      • Related to Samoan. Ask sm to host Tokelauan? Scott Gall 05:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would you quit it already, Scott? One Wikipedia never hosts another. They are either separate or they aren't. And English is related to German... but they have separate Wikipedias. And also, quit requesting Wikipedias for no particular reason. gosh. --Node ue 21:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Node, it wasn't Scott who requested the WP in Tokelauan, it was an anonymous IP. And also, if you say one WP never hosts another, the Chinese WP is hosting a simplified Chinese and a traditional Chinese WP. NazismIsntCool 08:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, they have automatic conversion software. They're considered to be the same language, written in "different alphabets" so to speak --Node ue 16:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • So that means if you vandalise one bit, it applies to the other bit (not that I know enough Chinese to vandalise it.) Scott Gall 01:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS: And the simplified and traditional wikis used to be separate.
            • Very good. But the reason there are separate wikis in English (obviously) and German is because they aren't as related as Samoan and Tokelauan are. Scott Gall 10:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • Scott, you have caused so much frustration on this page. One Wikipedia hosting another language is never an option. After how many times people have answered similar questions from you, you should know this very well by now. fi: will not host Karelian. Ukrainian and Russian are closely related. Separate Wikipedias. Dutch and Plattdeutsch are closely related. Separate Wikipedias. Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian are nearly identical. Separate Wikipedias. Gujarati and Hindi are very close, yet there are still separate Wikipedias. Hawai'ian and Samoan are very close. Separate Wikipedias. OK? DO YOU GET IT NOW? --Node ue 16:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
                • Of course. They have their differences, not being COMPLETELY mutually intelligible. Scott Gall 06:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS: I thought Gujarati was Dravidian instead of Indo-European. PPS: You forgot Romanian and Moldovan - but the Moldovan wiki is in Cyrillic script for those who still prefer to write their tongue in that script.
                  • I thought Gujarati was Dravidian instead of Indo-European as well (this not to be compared to my former inability to tell between Budapest and Bucharest or Moldavia and Moldova.) Also, Irish and Scottish Gaelic are almost the same - separate WPs. Romanian and Aromanian are similar - separate WPs. Malay and Indonesian... I think we know. NazismIsntCool 23:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
                    • If you did every example, yes, you would make the page go over 32KB, eg. many Spanish speakers wouldn't want Catalan on their WP, Inuktitut spakers wouldn't want Kalaalisut (Greenlandic) or Inupiaq on their WP, Tok Pisin speakers wouldn't want Hiri Motu on their WP, Danish speakers wouldn't want Swedish on their WP, Esperanto speakers wouldn't want Interlingua on their WP, etc (etc because I don't want to be too much harder on this page :-) .) Scott Gall 07:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS: Is Esperanto related to Interlingua not taking into account the fact they're both constructed?
              • Also, on the topic of similar languages, Estonian and Voro are ALMOST the same, except that the second letter in the Estonian word for "dictionary" is an o but in Voro, the second letter in the word for "dictionary" is a y. However, they both start in s?n. NazismIsntCool 10:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS: On the subject of the language being requested in this part, having never been to Tokelau, I don't even know any Tokelauan, so you won't see my support vote here.
    • Support Belgian man 21:04, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Support --Taichi - (あ！) 21:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This request is actually useless, IMHO. There are < 4000 speakers of this language. If some of them want a Wikipedia - sure! But as long as that's not the case - why even talk about it?? - Arbeo 13:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support! The fact that there are <4000 speakers is a reason to help it. And what better when than publicising it on a free, open encyclopedia! Those who speak the language, such as myself, will be keen to help in order to protect it from extinction! I'm currently updating the en: Tokelauan ...
      • Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood: My point was not that an open encyclopedia in Tokelauan would be useless because it's such a small language - quite the contrary! What I meant was that discussing such a project without the involvement of people who speak the language is somewhat academic. ARBE0 21:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvaluan Wikipedia (2 support, 2 oppose)

  • People interested [if native speaker, please mark (N)]:
    • Proposer's user account in Meta and other wikis: --Btw 11:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • User accounts of others who are willing to work on the proposed wiki: User:Belgian man
  • ISO code : tvl
  • proposed domain: http://tvl.wikipedia.org
  • Relevant infos:
    • Link to article on the language in an existing Wikipedia: en:Tuvaluan language
    • App. number of speakers: 13 051
    • Location(s) spoken: Tuvalu, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand
    • Closely related languages, if any: Kapingamarangi, Nukumanu, Nukuoro, Nukuria, Ontong Java, Sikaiana and Takuu, also Tokelauan
    • External links to organizations that promote the language:
    • Tuvaluan is the most spoken language of Tuvalu. Important minority language in Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru and New Zealand.
    • Tuvaluan is the first language in Tuvalu, the third language in Kiribati, the sixth language in Nauru, the thirteenth language in Fiji and the eighteenth language in New Zealand; all qua number of speakers.
  • Link to request on a mailing list:
  • Comments:
    • Can you speak it at some level, Belgian man? We should at no cost risk a second Naurese-debâcle. Caesarion 15:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not the proposer. Neither was I for na:. Belgian man 18:31, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose as long as no native speakers support the idea. For further details, please see [29] Arbeo 20:40, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Strong Oppose. Tuvaluan is a bad language!!! No, kidding. The real reason is because of Belgian Man. I have seen his rudeness to newcomers at the Yoruba Wikipedia, and I am not impressed. --Node ue
      • Newcomer on yo: was a vandal. Belgian man 11:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, this is not the case. The newcomer nominated some of your dumb "alphabet soup" pages for deletion. These pages have no use. He did not launch a personal attack on you or anything, but you proceeded to tell him in a very rude way that he wasn't welcome. It was certainly possible that this man (or woman) is a real Yoruba speaker who you scared away -- you didn't wait to find out, though, did you?? Now, the only useful content on the Yoruba Wikipedia has been added by me (content on the mainpage). The rest is not useful at all, and many of it is at the wrong pagenames (for example the Yoruba word for Nigeria isn't "Nigeria"). Your stupid alphabet soup and number pages remain, and are of no use to anybody. If you are allowed to ruin more Wikipedias as you have ruined the Nauruan and Yoruba Wikipedias, I think it will be very bad for the aim of the foundation. You know very well that many people are already worried about your status in the Nauruan Wikipedia, it's not wise to ask for more. --Node
          • I didn't write ONE of these stupid alphabet-"articles"! How could you think that! And if I wasn't a contributor on yo:, it was now an enormous spam collection! The only thing I do there is revert spam (and other) vandalism! Belgian man 09:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Belgian man 21:03, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. Is a national language. --Taichi - (あ！) 21:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scouse Wikipedia (4 oppose)

Template:New-language-template

Chavacano (8 support)

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

Weekeejames (N)

Language code (ISO 639): (ISO 639-3): cbk

Please take note that Chavacano does not have a standard ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2 language codes. ISO 639-3 code for Chavacano is cbk, but Chavacano has some varieties. This request is for the Chavacano de Zamboanga variety which has the largest number of this Philippine Creole Spanish speakers in the Philippines, being the main language of Zamboanga City, Philippines. Hence, I am requesting the language code to be used for the Chavacano de Zamboanga Wikipedia as cbk-zam (see proposed domain below).

Proposed domain: cbk-zam.wikipedia.org
Relevant infos:
  • Link to article(s) on the language in an existing Wikipedia: en:Chavacano es:Chabacano
  • Native name(s): Chavacano/Chabacano
  • Approximate number of speakers: 6 to 700,000
  • Location(s) spoken: Zamboanga City, Zamboanga Sibugay, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur, Basilan, Cotabato, Davao, and in some parts of the Sulu Province in the Philippines. Also, in some parts of Sabah, Malaysia. The other varieties are spoken in Cavite and Ternate. There are Chavacano speakers in the Americas, Europe, Oceania, Middle East and Polynesia as part of the Filipino diaspora.
  • Closely related languages, if any: Spanish and other Philippine Languages
  • External links to organizations that promote the language: Government Website of Zamboanga City www.zamboanga.com Zamboanga.net Zamboanga.org LA Zamboanga Times Zamboanga Forum

(Please take note all these Zamboangeño websites, although presented in English, do promote Chavacano.)

Link to request on a mailing list: {{{Request on mailing list}}}

Comments:

To those who would like to support and help, please add your name above (See People Interested) and do not forget to mark yourself with (N) if you are a native speaker. Gracias a todos and please help support and preserve our Hispanic heritage. --Weekeejames 12:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taichi, there are three main varieties of Chavacano whose speaks call it such. They are sufficiently different to have their own Wikipedias. cbk-zam specifies which variety of Chavacano the Wikipedia will be out. There could also be cbk-cav (Caviteño Chavacano) and cbk-ter (Ternateño Chavacano). --Chris S. 17:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the total of chavacano speakers are 600 to 700 thounsands, ¿which percent belong for each variety? --Taichi - (あ！) 09:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(En español) Quiero saber el porcentaje de hablantes de chabacano zamboangueño sobre las otras dos variantes. --Taichi - (あ！) 09:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Approx. or more than 75% of Chavacano speakers are of the Zamboangeño variety. The other varieties comprise the other 25% or less. Ternateño, Davaoeño, and Cotabateño are almost extinct. Ermitaño is considered extinct, while there are still speakers of Caviteño. Today, the most speakers of Chavacano are of the Zamboangeño and Caviteño variety. --Weekeejames 04:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for cbk-zam only for Zamboagueño, then is possibly change the request title for Zamboangueño Chavacano.--Taichi - (あ！) 09:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necesarily. The spelling "Chavacano" already speaks for itself - the Zamboangeño variety. Zamboangeños have no problem spelling it with "v" while the other varieties (especially Caviteño and Ternateño) spell it as "Chabacano" with a "b". See Chavacano --Weekeejames 15:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YMMV with regards to the use of b and v in particular varieties of Chavacano. I have seen Zamboangueño texts preferring b over v and vice versa for Caviteño ones. It's kind of like in other Philippine languages where people prefer Spanish-style orthography over "native" orthography. --Chris S. 04:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While there are Zamboangeño texts preferring "b" over "v" of which is the original spelling in Spanish (chabacano), the spelling with a "v" (Chavacano) has come to general acceptance and usage especially when referring to the word as a proper noun - the name of the language itself - and not as the Spanish adjective. This usage is common among Zamboangeños. For most Zamboangeños, Chavacano with a "v" is their kind of Chabacano variety. One general rule among Zamboangeño writers is to spell words of Spanish origin in their Spanish spelling of words, while those of native origin in their native spelling. Thus chabacano as an adjective (and even as a proper noun) is correct while Chavacano as a proper noun is also considered generally accepted and correct especially in Zamboanga City. Even though Chabacano/Chavacano is a Spanish based creole, it is very much a native language because its speakers are natives and not Spaniards. Hence in this context, the Zamboangeño "Chavacano" is a native Philippine language using a non Spanish orthography. --Weekeejames 10:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was the initial plan (of fitting the different varieties into one general Chavacano Wikipedia). But doing so, would mean more disapproval than support. One user who strongly disagrees is Chris S. because of vocabulary differences between the different varieties of which I agree. Imagine a Chavacano/Chabacano wikipedia being written and edited by users of the different varieties. There wouldn't be a standard form unless we are specific. Hence, this Chavacano de Zamboanga Wikipedia was decided for the Zamboangeño variety which has the most number of speakers. --Weekeejames 04:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. It was my impression, too (from information I've been able to find on the net) that the varieties are probably just too different. Thus focussing on Zamboangueño for now seems sensible. Would be great if you could find a second native speaker willing to participate (then we could move this request to "approved"). --ARBE0 09:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, with creole languages different varieties usually have the same name, so specifying is important. "Pidgin" for example can refer to Hawaiian Creole English or Tok Pisin of New Guinea. The word "kreol" and its variants can refer to diverse varieties of English-based varieties spoken in Belize, Sierra Leone, Australia, etc. and also to French-based ones like those in Haiti, Louisiana, etc. Of course, this isn't just limited to creoles; in the Philippines example the terms Visayan, Bikol, Ifugao, and Manobo individually refer to a variety of speech varieties. --Chris S. 04:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Requests for new languages/cg

Chaldon-Siberian (23 support, 5 oppose)

People interested [if native speaker, please mark (N)]: Yaroslav Zolotaryov (N)

--Kurukull 14:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC) --Baznica (N) 15:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC) --romych (N) 16:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC) --ChaldonFighter (N) 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language code (ISO 639): none, proposed: sib sib is the Sebob Kenyah code. Belgian man (nl na en) 15:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed domain: sib.wikipedia.org sib is the Sebob Kenyah code. Belgian man (nl na en) 15:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test wiki: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-WP/chal

Relevant infos:
Link to request on a mailing list:
Ethnologue.com is the reference about if this language exists, is a lie about the 5-10 millions, exists languages with few speakers (hundreds or dozens) and has a ISO code. I suspect about the support of the IP annonymous, because only Yaroslav is the unique registered user. --Taichi - (あ！) 22:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sib but not slb --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just please type "Chaldon Siberia" in Google, and we can show a lot of people how know the language, and promote it. All the three east-slavonic wikis (russian, ukrainian, belorussian) have articles about the language --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in real dialects of the Chaldons and in literary form in vlogota.com and other sites beyond LJ. Do you want to say that Chaldons do not exist or that volgota.com do not exist?--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that http://samir74.livejournal.com, http://volgota.com/ and User:Yaroslav Zolotaryov are same person. Please avoid self-references. It's still original research.
According to ru:Сибирский язык (still not NPOV): Chaldon-Siberian is project of constructed language ... Created in 2005. (Сиби́рский язы́к — проект искусственного языка, создаваемого на базе восточнославянских диалектов Сибири, в основном старожильческих говоров XIX века, с участием тюркских, монгольских и арабских заимствований. Возник в 2005.). I don't know how much common it has with language of Chaldons. Other linguists could answer this question. Please give any credible references.
EugeneZelenko 03:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Chaldon dialect exists: http://www.yandex.ru/yandsearch?rpt=rad&text=%F1%E8%E1%E8%F0%F1%EA%E8%E9+%F1%F2%E0%F0%EE%E6%E8%EB%FC%F7%E5%F1%EA%E8%E9+%E3%EE%E2%EE%F0

2. The literary form exists: http://www.yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%F1%E8%E1%E8%F0%F1%EA%E8%E9+%FF%E7%FB%EA&stype=www 3. Russian wiki lies for political reasons, hating any language except russian for siberian slavonians. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://uk.wikipedia.org/: "Сибірська мова — літературна мова, створена у 2005 році на основі східнослов'янських діалектів Сибіру, здебільшого старожитецьких говірок XIX сторіччя" (Siberian language is literary language based on dialects of Siberia", but russians they themselves consider their article not NPOV. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't lie for political reasons too. And please don't talk about politics here. According to be:Сыбірская мова it's still праект штучнай мовы (project of constructed language). From uk: article (from beginning to 29 січня 2006 version, excluding last days editing) напівштучна мова (half-constructed, as far a I understand Ukrainian). Again, where are references to external sources? --EugeneZelenko 13:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What lie, when russian wiki tried to write there "this is a project which is against russian state", and only protests of siberian and belorussian democrats stopped to do this? The history is available, and anybody can see this. The belorussian version just translates russian one. http://volgota.com, http://inache.net and other sites that promote - is it enough for external sources? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, moved to non-natural, though it is natural, and there is about 20 voices in support yet --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please move the request to Requests for new languages/Non-natural, because this is an artificial language. --Taichi - (あ！) 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not, but it is possible to create the wiki if it will be considered artificial? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose language does not seem to be natural; otherwise Slavonic variants spoken in Siberia are simply Russian dialects not really much different from Moscow or St.-Peterburg Russian. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 13:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for as long as Yaroslav doesn't provide information from independent, neutral sources that indicates that this is a distinct and existing language (I can't find any at present). ARBE0 12:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I know it is hard to find and independent, neutral source in such topic - all russian sources denies the language with great energy, and all tha siberian separatists and some kazakhstan and ukrainian sources support it with the same energy. Well, if I will work with the wiki as if it would be an artificial language (request is already made), and it will be five or more contributors from native siberians or not, who will write in such wiki, will you oppose then? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Alex_Yesod 18:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Support

P.S. Please, add me as a contributor. I'm prepare to write regularly to Siberian Wikipedia. - User: Steel archer

  • Support - --Kivan 17:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Siberian is language of my ancestors, i wish to restore it and i want that it had the free reference in territory of Siberia. Or we should drown moscovites in blood. Thanks[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages&oldid=363920"