Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Ancient Greek 2

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

Ancient Greek Wikipedia[edit]

See also the first request (rejected).
See also the third request (rejected).
See also the fourth request (in progress).
main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Ancient Greek 2)
submitted verification final decision
Process-stop.svg This proposal has been rejected.
This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy based on the discussion on this page.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

The community should develop the test project on the Incubator wiki. The feasibility of opening a new wiki will be judged based on the success of this test project.--Shanel 03:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The test project has been deemed a success. The only step left before the creation of a Ancient Greek Wikipedia is the translation of the basic wiki interface; if you'd like to contribute, please see "Localization" on the talk page. Jon Harald Søby 19:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The language subcommittee's policy does not allow Wikipedias in ancient languages (i.e. those with no native speakers, classified as "historical" by ISO 639-3). However, we encourage the creation of Wikisources in ancient languages, or incorporation of texts from that language into an existing Wikisource. Please add any Ancient Greek materials to the Greek Wikisource.--Shanel 07:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

^ This is completely illogical, then why there is a Ancient Gothic Language Wiki (see http://got.wikipedia.org) or http://ang.wikipedia.org ? The language policy should be modified due to the great influence of ancient greek into european culture, it's as important as latin and this is besides the few speakers in the vatican, where italian is spoken more and more, also a dead-language, most contributors in the latin-wiki are not native speakers, they are interested in classics, and the same is possible with ancient greek. and it's not a problem to combine the various dialects, we may prefer attic language in general, but it is not a problem to have several (special marked) pages in koine, etc.

sentences like "old wikis are not affected by the policy" are a very easy excuse for the unfair handling of language proposals. the policy should affect all or none. not only new ones. i am very sad about the lack of understanding the importance of the ancient greek language into western culture. it stands row in row with latin. so if we gonna put some wikis into a incubator project, anglo-saxon and gothic are to be removed first, ancient-greece and latin last.--Clayman0 12:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

^ This decision does not make any sense at all! Ancient Greek is one of the most important languages in human history, plus having a look at the arguments in favor in the discussion there's every good reason to have an Ancient Greek version of Wikipedia. I'm sorry to say so, but this rejection is nothing but a bureaucratic decision by the people of the language committee. Classic example of missing the forest for the trees. This has to change! 79.173.150.82

^ Who is the "committee" and the "subcommittee"? It sounds like THX1138. Do they just know how many wikis are in an ancient language as they define it? Just look toward East... Orientalische Sprachen... They probably fear some uncontrollable escalation, with wild requests for thousands of "historical languages" like Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Old Persian, Hurrian, Cypro-Minoan, what else? Old English, Gottic? Oh no, these ones allready exist... Apart from this inconsistency, actually there allready is an uncontrollable escalation with "native-speakers languages" since are approved insignificant languages, even dialects or idiolects, varieties of vernacular languages, spoken in situation of diglossia by a handfull of persons and, above all, unsuited to what requires an encyclopedia, without "scholar engineering" so profound it makes them unintelligible to the so-called native speakers. (Picard, Arpetan, etc. My purpose is not to be polemical, but to compare.) By the way, proposal for closing Old Englisk wikipedia has been rejected. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Old_English_Wikipedia The fact is one cannot escape value judgments by simply schelter behind pseudo-objective criteria. Of course, no one needs Wikipedia in (for instance) Aragonés, Asturianu, Emiliàn e rumagnòl, Norsk nynorsk, Norsk bokmål, Bokmål, Frysk, Alemannisch, Piemontèis... if it is just a mean to access information. --78.240.31.116 11:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


Then why there is Anglo-Saxon language wikipedia? 188.4.25.96 01:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

As the first proposal has been canceled because of the changes in the language proposal policy here is my request to open a Wikipedia in the language that probably has more deeply influenced the culture of the western world than any other. Ancient greek is taught in many schools and universities, most frequently the attic greek, so the stress should be put on the attic dialect.

Arguments in favour[edit]

  • Support Well, all the arguments for traditional Greek apply for this one.
  • The amount of support shown for the ancient Greek wikipedia shows that it is not like some of the other ancient languages given wikis (Pali, Gothic!). Ancient Greek is a language sufficiently different from modern Greek to justify a separate wiki, yet close enough that many Greeks, and indeed others around the world, can achieve a high level of writing proficiency.
  • The ancient Greek language is suited to academic writing (as can be seen in the myriad philosophical works in which it is used) and to the creation of neologisms for new concepts. Problems encountered in other ancient languages such as the translation of telephone, atom, and triskaidekaphobia do not apply!
  • But I think that the most convincing argument of all is that by editing a Greek wikipedia, I will no longer be procrastinating, I will be working! LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 12:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support This project could become a cultural centerpiece for Wikimedia, a gem in our collective crown, in much the same way as the extraordinary Latin Wikipedia. Ancient Greek and Latin are the two languages that form the basis of European civilization. Dovi 11:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, just to add to that, the Latin wikipedia (which now has 11 000 articles) is further proof if it were needed that wikipedias in well-attested ancient languages with technical vocabularies like ancient Greek can be successful. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 13:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Clearly a viable Wikipedia with lots of people who are taught to understand this language all over Europe. —Nightstallion (?) 16:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The "slippery slope" argument does not hold. New Testament Greek would never get its own wiki, since it is no more than simplified ancient Greek with some Semitic loan-words (there is a Latin wikipedia, but to my knowledge no requests for vulgate or mediaeval Latin). I think that there could be a place for New Testament vocabulary such as εὐαγγελος etc. on articles where it would obviously be appropriate i.e. articles to do with the Abrahamic religions. What does everyone else think? LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 12:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I will absolutely second that. We encourage classical style, orthography, and syntax at Vicipaedia, but we constantly use archaic and medieval Latin to support our encyclopaedia. Sometimes a modern concept has been clearly named, and clearly written about in a later form of Latin, and we use what we need. The same should be true for Ouiki: stick to Attic, borrow where necessary.--Josh Rocchio 21:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support --Nakos2208 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Read the guidelines; this is not a vote. Jon Harald Søby 15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support SPQRobin 11:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC) If Latin has a Wikipedia, I think Ancient Greek must have also one. This language is more "important" than all the dialects that already have a Wikipedia.
  • Support Antiphon(German Wikipaidia) Im in favor of it, there are too many ancient languages already, and if there is a justification, for e.g. Latin (no pun intended), then Ancient Greek with a saved literature of ca. more than 8 times that of Latin surely deserves one too. And lets not even talk of medieval English and the like. It is also taught in school, so there is a solid basis. I dont think that every language and dialect does deserve its own wiki, if anyone SHOULD propose it, im against Mycanean Greek:-) --87.168.36.31 19:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Marcos 21:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Read the guidelines; this is not a vote. Jon Harald Søby 15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Charles Darwin All over the world there are so many people studying ancient greek that this wiki would have many possible contributors. I think of classes, taking it as a project or just people who want to improove their ancient greek skills. unsigned by 217.228.96.46 20:46, 10 March 2007.
  • Support Per already existing Latin Wikipedia. It would be very useful for the learners of Ancient Greek (for both reading and writing practice), the importance of which, for the fields of linguistics and history, is beyond any discussion. AtilimGunesBaydin 06:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support It is one of our obligations in life that we should not forget the ancient culture of any people, and as one of the editors of the Aromanian Wikipedia roa-rup:, a language whose large part comes from Ancient Greek, I would like to support the opening of the Ancient Greek Wikipedia. Eeamoscopolecrushuva 12:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I am also in favour of opening the Ancient Greek Wikipedia. Since there is already a Latin one, which seems to be quite useful for students in Ancient History and Classics, I wonder why we should not consider an encyclopedia dealing with entries in Attic Greek???
Support as well, and I'd like to comment on the last user's post about the Latin wikipedia. Vici currently has over 12,500 articles, and some of them have been getting pretty good. It has clearly been shown that students of a classical "dead" (I cringe at typing that, Viva Latinitas!) language can work together and provide a useful, and educational -- both for the writers ourselves and for readers-passing-by -- tool in a cohesive and cooperative fashion. We have people from all over the world, not all of whom necessarily speak a common language, but we can manage to write an encyclopaedia together.
This may be more difficult for an Attic encyclopaedia than a Latin one... lord knows my Greek comp is below and beyond my Latin comp. But then again, most of what I know about Latin comp I learned by editing at wikipedia. I came there thinking I knew something, realized I knew nothing, and it has motivated me as an editor to do my best to learn from my constant mistakes. I don't think I'm the only one who is like this, at all. I see the same thing happening with this project. There will be paides and paedagogoi, and I think it could be a great project, a great compliment to Vicipaedia, and a great way to spread and promote wthe learning of this language, to which all speakers and thinkers of any western language and culture are so much indebted.--Josh Rocchio 21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

11:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It will be great to have an Ancient Greek Wikipedia. --Transistor 15:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguments against[edit]

  • Oppose:Opening a new discussion, is not the right way. Let us discuss and modify the previous discussion for a "Traditional Greek Wiki" Nadja_von_Werner
    This is not a good argument. Traditional Greek isn't the same as Ancient Greek. SPQRobin 12:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose:Even with sympathy for ancient Greek culture, I would never support a conservated form of a language. And if we open a "Wikipedia Ancient Greek" what comes next? A new testamentary Greek Wikipedia? Modulor, Greetings from Paris, 21.1.2007
    • Not really an argument. Look at the Latin Wikipedia. It's growing successfully on now more than 17,000 articles. Also modern things are dealt there. That's no problem because Latin is the classical language of science and many modern terms are derived from it. Same applies for ancient greek. It's also widely used as a source for modern terms (e. g. automobile or biotechnology). Even other ancient language Wikipedias are already existing: Anglo Saxon, Old Church Slavonic, Gothic, Pali, Sanskrit, and Classical Chinese. --Duschgeldrache2 20:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose--Absar 14:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I must also remind: Read the guidelines; this is not a vote.--Lefcant 17:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

General discussion[edit]

There's just one problem: how can we write the W in Wikipedia? These was no such fricative in classical greek. We could use the Beta, but this would sound bikipedia; or there's the solution to take the pre-classical Digamma which corresponds very well, this would look like: Ϝικιπαίδεια. What do you think of that?
As I have only basic knowledge of this language, I'd be really glad if someone else could translate the interface (Once (and if) it's online), LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs and/or Patroklis can surely do better than me, I don't want to make some mistake...

The Greeks often replaced the w sound in Latin words with an ο or an ου as in Ὀαλεριος and Οὐαλεριος, (Οὐικιπεδια would probably be best in this case). Should we get a test wiki, there will be plenty of time to worry about the interface. We can start with something simple like Οὐικιπεδια, ἠ ἐλευθερη ἐγκυκλοπαιδια ἡν ἐξεστι τινι διασκευαζειν (I hope that is right, edit = διασκευαζω), village pump = ἀγορα, current events = τα γενομοενα, recent changes = αἱ μεταβολαι αἱ νεαι etc... Don't worry about getting things wrong: a page with a few mistakes is better than an empty one. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 18:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about writing pedia with an ε? As the word is of greek origine it should be Οὐικιπαίδια as in παιδεία shouldn't it?
So your proposal would be with full diacritics: Οὐικιπαίδια, ἡ ἐλεύθερη ἐγκυκλοπαίδεια ἥν ἔξεστί τινι διασκευάζειν. I don't know if διασκευάζειν exists in the active diathesis... We could also use μεταλλάτειν or μεταβάλλειν for "to change".
In this last point I can easily be wrong: how about replacing τινι by παντί to make clear that it's really everyone, or would that be a wrong expression? --Lefcant 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did those translations very quickly. You are correct, it should be Οὐικιπαίδια. I am afraid that my knowledge of diacritics is very poor. I looked up διασκευάζειν on one of the Perseus Project tools, and it says that Aristeas uses it to mean editing or revising something before publication. At the moment I would stick with τινι to mean "anyone", which is the wording used in most languages. I am fairly sure that it gets across the idea of everyone.Hilary term starts next week, so I shall try to remember to ask my Greek teacher about this. He is the Grammatikos at Magdalen College, Oxford, so if there is anyone in the world who will know the answers, he will. But I think that we digress: more good arguments for the creation of the wiki, anyone? LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 18:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed another thing: As the word encyklopedia comes from ἐν κύκλῳ παιδεία, Wikipedia then is also Οὐικιπαίδεια. So now I hope, this word is clear ;-) --Lefcant 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the modern Greek wiki is Βικιπαιδεια LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The digamma would be cool, but we will need to make some dialectual rules, no? I assume this is to be an Attic wiki? Sorry to butt into conversation before I said I want to help, but hey, there it is... =] --Josh Rocchio 20:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be an unspoken consensus in support of the Greek used by Athenian prose writers of the late 5th and early 4th centuries BCE. Personally I would say that both σσ and ττ (as in θάλασσα) are acceptable as long as they are used consistently throughout the article, since many Greek lexicons (such as Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary) and courses (such as British GCSE and A level Classical Greek) use σσ, as did Thucydides. But when in doubt, go with Attic.
P.S. I think that the digamma should be part of the logo when we get an Ancient Greek wikipedia proper. Perhaps we can vote on this if/when the test wiki starts to attract more users. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I want also help. :-) I've made a page for this. SPQRobin 11:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So, the test page is launched (I tried to translate the introduction text of the German Wikipedia, I don't know if it's comprehensible...). As I already said, I don't know enough ancient greek to do it myself and I'm courious about how the ancient greek speakers will participate. --Lefcant 17:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I will only sign in, and help a little bit. SPQRobin 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi!!!! I would be definitely willing to help in this project!!!!! --Hieronymos 19:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Are we really planning on doing this whole wiki with polytonic? It makes Greek look terrible. We use Greek at Vicipaedia, wholly without a polytonic formula, with seemingly no ill side effects...--Ioshus(talk) 12:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on one's browser. I use Firefox and have all the pages in the Arial Unicode font, so it looks fine to me. When I select "allow pages to choose their own fonts" I think the polytonic pages actually look better (although Palitino Linotype may not be to everyone's taste), since the non-polytonic pages have letters that are different sizes. Back when I used Internet Explorer, it did not support Greek breathing marks unless the pages were polytonic (the letters came up as boxes). If this is still the case with IE it might be best to use polytonic Greek. What browser are you using? LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm using firefox, too. I just get worried about the use of the formula...it was designed for small bits of Greek, not full pages. We will run into problems when and if we want to do fancy editing. I think old IE still has problems but not the new version.--Ioshus(talk) 17:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Could those who are interested in editing on Οὐικιπαιδεία (should we be approved) please put their names under "Users interested in forming an editing community" in the proposal summary above? LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Every body shoud have promote this project in each forum of classic languages, and inside universities and institutes where Ancient greek is teach o know

typing it[edit]

How are we to type in Ancient Greek (or any, really) if we (meaning I) don't have a keyboard for it? Also, how does one get the breathing marks/accents above the letters? 98.27.171.83 18:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

See e.g. Help:Special characters#Editing. --UV 20:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

can we deploy without translations?[edit]

It seems the only thing holding this up is translating the interface. But why do we need to do this? The goal is to create a corpus of ancient Greek text, but I imagine most of the actual discussion about the text will be in English, or at any rate not Attic. (Composition is one thing, conversation is another!) This is not analogous to a situation such as Finnish where Finnish speakers want to interact and operate in Finnish. We can get by without "minor edit" and "last modified" being translated, and certainly without "unblock user" and "browser default" being in Greek, assuming they even can be (indeed, this may make it less usable; also, such things will be easier to translate once vocabulary conventions are hashed out in the encyclopedia itself, which will happen when this is an active project). To summarize, we should be product-oriented. I *say we deploy this as a Wikipedia, and let the interface translations, should they be desired, trickle in, meanwhile building up a large body of classical Greek articles! 67.42.2.70 05:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, translating the messages into Ancient Greek is difficult, and requires such a degree of paraphrasing that the Greek is impossible to understand without being told what the English/Modern Greek equivalent is. Much better to wait until a wiki is created so that these things can be discussed by a larger community.
Furthermore, quite a few messages have been translated: there are existing wikis with over 10 000 articles (such as Javanese, Neapolitan and Nepal Bhasa) which have fewer messages translated that Greek, as one can see [1].
In any case, it would probably be best to start the wiki and allow users to choose to have the messages in their first language using the "My Preferences" options. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)