Requests for new languages/Wikiquote Limburgish

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Limburgish Wikiquote[edit]

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:

See an unofficial analysis of this request and its test project by a member of the language subcommittee. --Shanel 18:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC) : This project has been approved, and is pending creation by the developers. —{admin} Pathoschild 14:20:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created at —{admin} Pathoschild 04:34:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

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

Wikipedia is growing and has 3320 articles, Wiktionary is growing and has 650 articles. Another note for Wiktionary is that it's on the 77th place of largest Wiktionaries. Limburgish is spoken by over 1,2 million people in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. I was estonished that there wasn't a Wikiquote yet! We don't need to translate the interface, because that has been done already. --Ooswesthoesbes 13:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Articles[edit]


Arguments in Favour[edit]

Arguments Against[edit]

  • Strong Oppose Limburgish is no language, but a dialect. I don't think they need a Wikiquote. It's total nonsence. Limburgish is just a less devoleped Dutch, which is germanized later on. JHaeneberghen 12:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you say is nonsence. Limburgish is a language and not germanized Dutch. --Ooswesthoesbes 12:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) PS some dialects of Limburgish also have many French words: w:li:Mestreechs[reply]
    • Typical response of someone who doesn't know anything about Limburgish (germanized?). There is a slow but steadily growing Limburgish Wikipedia. I don't have a strong opinion about the need for this wikiquote, even though I am a sysop on the Limburgish Wikipedia, but responses like these really tick me off. - PAhles 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, you're Limburgish yourself? Than I think you don't have any rights of defending. I think you just try to protect your dialect which is infact a germanized Dutch. I keep this opinion untill I see somebody who is not Limburgish and who tells me that Limburgish is a language which is not germanized Dutch, thank you. JHaeneberghen 11:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This really is ridiculous. Which is your native language? If somebody says that your native language is just a fakelanguage, you should defend your language too. Please stop with this nonsence. Thank you. --Ooswesthoesbes 17:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it was such a dialect as you claim it is, how could it ever get an ISO 639-1 code? -Markvondeegel 09:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like I said, a typical response of somebody who doesn't know anything about Limburgish. You say I don't have a right of defending this request because I'm Limburgish. What gives you the right of opposing the request? The fact that you are not Limburgish (are you?)? Sounds rather ridiculous to me. How do you know Limburgish is a germanized Dutch? Who says so (except you)? Please give links to confirm this pronouncement? What is germanized, btw? That it sometimes sounds German? So what? If I follow your reasoning Afrikaans should also be denied a wikipedia, wikiquote, and whatelse, since it is a direct relative of Dutch and they use a lot of Dutch words too.
The fact that Limburgisch has an ISO 639-1 code should say enough, though. - PAhles 14:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have I said I allow Afrikaans, Nedersaksisch, Zealandic, Gronings or what so ever? All these dialects are just some mixtures or some less devoleped areas of the Netherlands who just changed Dutch to something almost unacceptable. I totally disagree with a creation of any wikis of such languages, sorry. About those ISO codes, they're just a list of some characters put together by men who don't understand anything of languages. JHaeneberghen 14:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing pro or against Limburgish as a language, but since you seem to think that you know much about languages, wouldn't you be so kind to describe what constitutes a language, and how different variates (of the same language group) should be classified as dialects or separate languages. What you've said above can be very well applied to e.g. to Slavic languages, making them all "dialects". Teak 15:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most languages are indeed dialects, but not all slavic languages are dialects from eachother. Polish and Croation differ too much from eachother. But Slovak and Czech are just dialects of Polish. If you wait a few days I'll let you show what I mean. JHaeneberghen 15:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me: less developed areas of the Netherlands? South Africa? I'm sure they don't agree there. And Limburg, Zeeland, Groningen too? This is just an opinion and as such totally irrelevant to this discussion. If I should believe you there is only one true form of Dutch? Well maybe you are right, but that means that Limburgish, Afrikaans, Nedersaksisch, Zealandic, Gronings and other dialects are not Dutch, so they should be entitled to their own wikis. BTW: contemporary Dutch was formed from a collection of dialects.
Apparently you are a real expert on languages, but I haven't seen any answer on my question about what 'germanized' means. You still haven't answered my question as to where you come from to discern why you are more credible than I (being Limburgish) regarding your opinion (and as such totally irrelevant to the discussion) on Limburgish. Why do we have to wait a few days. If you want to contribute to this discussion please do it now, and please don't shower us with opinions which are totally irrelevant. - PAhles 19:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well they can all be said to be dialects of Old Church Slavonic or Proto-Slavic language (some more developed, some less, with vernacular influences of course). And what I see from your suggestions, you seem to imply the same thing about Low Franconian languages. So when does a dialect get to be a separate language? I'm looking forward to your description... Teak 20:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All these dialects are just mistakes of humans a long time ago and other people started to use the wrong words too. You don't have the right to defend Limburgish, because you're Limburgish yourself. And if you defend Limburgish when you're Limburgish it would be unfair for other languages who do not have such availabilities. JHaeneberghen 08:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So stop using English, it's a human mistake, and while you are at it, forget your knowledge of Dutch too. You've just successfully established your troll status. And the last sentence was the killer, so a black man can not fight for the rights of blacks, since he himslef is black, and that would be unfair to other races, because other races do not have "availabilities" to fight for the rights of their race?! I applaud your unbeatable logic. Teak 12:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because most people speak English I need to use this mixtural dialect. And yes if "black" was a language or dialect I should totally agree with you. JHaeneberghen 12:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with this discussion, you're only wasting money. --Ooswesthoesbes 13:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language or Dialect?[edit]

I shall answer what germanized means: a language which is germanized is inflewenced by German and impure: a mixture or a less devoleped language. For example: Limburgish, Nedersaksish and Luxemburgish. My definition for a real language:

  • A pure language with a large vocabulary and irregular grammar, which is not less devoleped or a mixture. For example: Italian and Arabic

My definition for a dialect:

  • Mixture or less devoleped. For example (some more pure than others): Limburgish, Nedersaksish, Luxemburgish, English, Danish, German, Dutch, Norwegish, Swedish, Slovak, Czechian, Groningish, Slovenian, Croatian, Belorussian, Ukrainish, Moldovian, Turkish, Macedonian, Albanian and Bulgarish. JHaeneberghen 08:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you'll actually say all languages except Italian and Arabic are dialects? All Germanical and Slavic Languages? btw, it's Lower Saxon and Luxembourgish, Bulgarian, Norwegian, Gronings, Ukrainian etc. You have perfect language knowledge I see! --Ooswesthoesbes 08:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all slavic languages: Russian, Polish and Serbian are pure. And most Romanish languages are pure too. You forget that japonese and chinese are real languages. JHaeneberghen 08:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. This is irrelevant to the discussion. 2. You're maybe one of the greatest thinkers of this time. 3. Why is Croatian 'impure' and Serbian not? I don't think there's much differnece. 4. If Albanian would be impure, so would also Greek and Italian be. 5. Please stop this discussion, this is nonsence. --Ooswesthoesbes 08:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Discussion[edit]