Requests for new languages/Wikibooks Limburgish

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Limburgish Wikibooks[edit]

main page Requests for new languages (Wikibooks Limburgish)
submitted verification final decision
Application-certificate.svg 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.
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

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


  • There are 170 pages and 5 interested users.
  • To do:
    • Interface: in progress.h
    • More pages: When more interested users come, more articles will come.
    • Keep a nice balance between books/pages. Now we've got 4 pages per book, that's a little bit on the low side, so we need to change it.
    • Each month a new book of the month.
  • Last updated on 04:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC) by

Arguments in favour[edit]

  • Support Support This is the first online open-content texrbook collection in Limburgish ever. JohnVansdal 14:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Good idea, I think it will flow. --Ooswesthoesbes 13:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Conditional support: I created the project, but I think more activity would be usefull. SF-Language 16:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support It is active on this moment, do I see no problem in the creating of the Wikibooks. Bergman 07:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support: Per Jon van 't Doal. There shall be activity if I go editing, which I surely do. VanLankvelt 14:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support: There are less books in Limburgish. Many people go look on the Wikibooks to see for those books. This would be a great oppertunity for Limburgish people to start a Wikibooks. I can think many people would be interested in having such a project because many people have need of a Wikibooks since there are less books in Limburgish. I will go editing too. --Bergman 18:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, unlike Limburgish Wikipedia which is being gouverned by people that don't accept ány spelling except AGL. And that's why is doesn't have a userbase. We accept every user and every spelling who is willing to contribute on a good way. Benopat 05:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Strong support Great idea! Limburgish has more French words than "normal" Dutch, I noticed!

Arguments against[edit]

Before you post your argument here. Remember that useless comments like «it is a dialect» or «the limburgish wikipedia ...» are not considered valid arguments. Limburgish is recognised with an ISO 639-1 code and the Limburgish Wikipedia share 0 users with all other Limburgish projects and they use a different spelling too.

  • Oppose Oppose. There is a Dutch Wikibooks. JHaeneberghen 08:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I see you have already found this request too. We can't work with the Dutch Wikibooks, because they don't except us there. Please give 1 valid reason why we shouldn't create this project? Limburgish is a dialect is no valid reason, it has an ISO-639-1-code. I know you speak Limburgish yourself, so why do you constantly oppose our requests? --OosWesThoesBes 08:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They are not enough people who speak Limburgish to keep that project alive. Happy New Year, btw! JHaeneberghen 09:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OpposeStrongly Oppoose I don't believe Limburgish is a langauge. Although it does differ quite a bit from Dutch, it is only a dialect. Also, as said above, I don't believe it would last very long. There is already a Dutch one, I believe that is how it should stay. We can't have all of these dialects as languages. (Red4tribe 04:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
    And who are you to judge whether Limburgish is a dialect or a language? Limburgish in everyday life is unpure. Real Limburgish, you would probably not understand even if you're Dutch. It has an ISO-639-1-code, yes 1, so you could consider it to be a seperate language. Sometimes, the difference between German and Dutch are smaller, compare: Goed - Gut - Good. There are of course also people who say Dutch is a German dialect, but that's nonsense too. En esse den nag dinks det 't Plat gein taal is, raaj ich dich strang ane óm 'ns get taalkóndig beukskes te gaon laeze, sinse dae nag get van op kans staeke. --OosWesThoesBes 04:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I happen to be a Dutchman and I have very little trouble understanding someone from Maastricht and I'm from Alkmaar, I believe it is a dialect. That does not make it a fact but there is not a big enough of a difference for me to say this is a language. Dutch and German are not mutually intelligible such as Limburgish and standard Dutch are. (Red4tribe 18:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
    You know, the problem is Mestreechs is not pure Limburgish. In daily speech, real Limburgish words are often replaced with Dutch words. As you already seem to say, this is more an opinion than a real argument. Unfortunately for you, the fact we've got an ISO-639-1 code will tell enough to prove it's a language with many dialects rather than a dialect with many dialects. --OosWesThoesBes 05:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of course what I say really doesn't mean that much. It's just my opinion. I apologize if I came on the wrong way but I have never seen Limburgish as anything other than a distinct dialect. (Red4tribe 05:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
    Thank you for apologizing. I guess you're not a native speaker. Limburgish starts to become more Dutch day by day. I think these projects could help saving the Nederlandification of Limburgish. Though I agree a Wikiversity might be a little bit too much. Projects such as the Wikisource show beautiful results. --OosWesThoesBes 11:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, I can't disagree with you there. All of the dialects are slowly dying out. Much of the younger population just speaks standard Dutch now. I personally have never been a fan of dialects, as I'm sure you can see. Anyways I do speak dutch. (Red4tribe 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
    Red4tribe: "I don't believe it would last very long. " <-- This can be measured by the level of participation. It is evident that the special project committee for languages will consider its merit carefully. As for the language/dialect/anything-in-between issue is concerned, we already have a simple effective test: the existence of an ISO code. Hillgentleman 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. The experience of the Limburgish wiktionary is not exactly very encouraging. It is mostly a collection on bot-generated trash and OosWesThoesBes is the main culprit of that. Now he wants to generate more collections of trash? Not only here but even in Zeeuws... This is not good for the wiki-family
    Jcwf 02:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, the problem is I don't know how I should add bot-created "trash" to a wikibooks. For a Wiktionary it's quite simple, for Wikipedia too, but the other projects need to survive without bots. And what do you mean with Not only here but even in Zeeuws... ? --OosWesThoesBes 05:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It does not seem to me that creating a community in Limburgs is a good idea. Just watching the recent changes of li-Wikipedia shows a lot of edits but not much activity in a day and I do not see a vital community in Limburgish (as I hoped for). Is the li-wiki much known in Limburg? Then as I compare it to the nl-Wikipedia and nl-Wikibooks, nl-Wikipedia is very active, but on nl-Wikibooks it is not so much activity, but there is. What I try to say, Wikibooks is less familiar with than the big sister Wikipedia, but Wikipedia itself is a problem to because of not so much activity what I should expect. I would like to have the dialects of the Netherlands have their own project, but to me it should only be done if their is a vital community on at least li-Wikipedia. Romaine 23:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Almost nobody even knows about the existence of the Limburgish wikipedia. Li-wikipedia itself has some problems with - not bad meant - some users and some policies. That's why you hardly see me edit there. --OosWesThoesBes 14:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Core problem number 1: a very small language and very little people even knowing li-Wikipedia. The projects in nl-language (besides Wikipedia) are very small, the projects in Limburgish are much smaller. If there are little people on the Limburgish Wikipedia, even less people will be on Wikibooks in Limburgisch. First step is trying to get Wikipedia in Limburgisch much more known that people in Limburg go visit the encyclopedia!! (And also edit in it.) Romaine 11:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wikipedia in Limburgish will probably never succeed. Reason: there a policies that rule out people who want to write in the only well-fitting writing standard of Limburgish (High Limburgish). A normal Limburgish sentence like Dae góng kepót in 1988 (he died in 1988) is changed to Hae ging dood in 1988, reason: the writing system only allows Dutch words. Wikibooks will allow both systems, like the wikisource, wikiquote and wiktionary. --OosWesThoesBes 15:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose - Please do not create another project in a dialect/sub-language that doesn't even have a real standardization. This will properly only results in some region based articles. --jeroen 01:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Eh... There is a standardization... AGL (Algemein Gesjreve Limburgs) --OosWesThoesBes 14:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No that is not an "official" standardization. Also the user base is to small. --Jeroen 16:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Strongly Oppoose They even fail to keep up their own dialect wikipedia (which should be removed in my opinion because it does not add anything to the wikipedia project, it just costs unneccesary diskspace). Also it isn't even a language but a dialect. In my opinion wikimedia should create a rule that for example at least 1 million people need to speak the language before a wiki can be created.
    Verzwónje wegk èts se dietj laeve lank alle. Es se kós laeze, hejs se geweite det t'r 1,6 miljón luuj Plat kalle-n èn det 't hie-r euver 'ne spraok ónzich e-n halfplat geit. (if Limburgish would be a dialect, you should be able to fully understand this message. Please sign your post next time) --OosWesThoesBes 19:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Localisation update[edit]

  • Currently 99.74% of the MediaWiki messages and 99.08% of the messages of the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been localised. Please help us help your language by localising at Betawiki. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks, GerardM 07:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Currently 97.79% of the MediaWiki messages and 83.18% of the messages of the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been localised. Please help us help your language by localising at Betawiki. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks, GerardM 10:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oej... Quite forgot the betawiki... Currently I'm in Denmark, but as soon as I'm back in Limburg (begin august) I can start working on the wikibooks and betawiki. --OosWesThoesBes 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Currently 89.55% of the MediaWiki messages and 55.33% of the messages of the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been localised. Localisation of these messages is a requirement before your request is finally assessed. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks, GerardM 11:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Currently 89.89% of the MediaWiki messages and 42.23% of the messages of the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been localised. Localisation of these messages is a requirement before your request is finally assessed. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks, GerardM 22:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Time to translate something I see... --OosWesThoesBes 17:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Language committee has been approved Wikibooks in Limburgish and while we are waiting 4-7 days for Board to give the final word, please fill the next questionnaire:

  • Language name in native language (not needed for the setup, but needed if it is a completely new language for updating Meta pages)
  • Language code:
  • Logo (135x155px PNG image; a derivative from a decent SVG image):
  • Project name ("Wikibooks" in native language):
  • The name of the project namespace (usually the same as the previous):
  • The name of the project talk namespace (something like "Wikibooks talk" in your language):
  • Default project timezone (something like: CET (UTC+1)):

--Millosh 18:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Language name: Limburgs
  • Language code: li
  • Logo: can't create it myself, so if someone could help me it would be very useful
  • Project name: Wikibeuk
  • Name of the project namespace: Wikibeuk
  • Name of the project talk namespace: Euverlèk Wikibeuk
  • Default timezone: UTC+0
--OosWesThoesBes 05:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: logo, what is the translation for the logo?
  • Wikibooks = Wikibeuk
  • Open books for an open world = ? (You can do "Free books for a free world" or something similar if you want too)
Cbrown1023 talk 22:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open books for an open word: Vrie beuk veur 'ne vrieje werreld. --OosWesThoesBes 04:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svg Done File:Wikibooks-logo-li.png. Cbrown1023 talk 20:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you :) --OosWesThoesBes 07:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bug request has been submitted: --Millosh 02:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]