Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Andalusian

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

Andalusian Wikipedia[edit]

main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Andalusian)
submitted verification final decision
Process-stop.svg 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 20:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Number of speakers: 8.000.000 approx.
  • Locations spoken: Andalusia, and immigrants mostly in parts of Europe, North and South America.
  • Related languages: Latin, Portuguese, Italian, Catalan, Castilian (Spanish), Ladino (Spanish), French, Aragonese, Asturian, Murcian, Extremaduran, Galego, Mirandes, Provencal, Neapolitan, Sicilian...

Agora ya tenemoh a buehtra dihpozizion un wiki pa loh andaluzeh http://andalu.wikicities.com i ke biba er Betih manke piehda!

Comments
  • There is a standard in transcribing Andalusian which is mentioned in the es:wiki article on Andalusian: NOA or Norma Ortográfica Andaluza although not many speakers of Castilian may be aware of this fact, it is a "standard" which aims to show the actual spoken Andalusian. There are of course other proposed "orthographies" or spelling conventions which aim towards a more "phonetic" rendering of Andalusian. (similarly with Galego there are efforts to change the orthography by some who want to approximate it to Portuguese written conventions). The NOA is a good transition towards a legible form of Andalusian with enough similarity to written Castilian to make it familiar to generations of Andalusians who were taught to write Castilian.
Support:'
  1. Support(N)--Rautjes 23:05, 13 Nov. 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support--Node ue 23:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support (N)--ILVI 01:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC) (nacido en Sevilla) Let's hear it for minority languages!!! (in this case not such a small minority, however ;-)
  4. Support(N)--Chitita It isn't absourd to create a wikipedia in andalusian, it is another language for a lot of andalusians, who would participate more in the wiki project if they had a Wikipedia in Andalusian. There are a lot of Spaniards that hate to hear about the andalusian language, because they don't want andalusians to have the right to do what they want with their language, but this site isn't Spain or its governments, it is a free site in the internet with the purpose to create a free Encyclopedia in all the possible languages. ANDALUSIAN IS ONE OF THOSE LANGUAGES. 15:31, 15 Nov. 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support(N)--Juaniyo3 I can't understand why those spaniards don't want that we have a wiki in our language. There is a lot of wikis in languages that are not natural. Those non-natural languages are able to have a wiki. There are also a lot of dialects that have an own Wikipedia. Andalusian is a natural language, spoken by aprrox. 8.000.000 persons. We should also have the possibility to write in our mother-language, it is not possible at school in Andalusian, it is prohibited, so that our language is going to dissappear in the future, because it wont be learned at school. An Encyclopedia in Andalusian would give Andalusian a very important opportunity not to disappear. I'm sure Wikipedia is going to do that, and I am also sure that not just to Andalusian. 15:53, 15 Nov. 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support(N)--Oplicoisn't a username, anonymous It isn't fair what some people that oppose to an Andalusian Wikipedia say. Andalusia has allways been different of the rest of Spain. It has allways had a proper culture, history and language. It is time to start a serius project in Andalusian, the idea of a Wikipedia is very good to start something serious in Andalusian. I know there are a lot of crazy people, but those people are not interested in a Wikipedia, just we that are serious, are interested in it. Spanish people dont have to be afraid because of Andalusian. A Wikipedia in Andalusian is going to make the culture of Andalusia, Spain and the world richer. 15:53, 15 Nov. 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support (N)-- Theurge 17:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) If there are wikipedia's in many dialects I believe that it isn't a nonsense that "Andalú" have got one of this.anonymous
  8. Support (N)-- Francisco Morales 22:13, 15 November 2005 "Andalú" is too diferent from spanish to be a dialect. Moreover some people from other non-andalusian cities can't understand "andalú" due to the diferences between castilian and andalusian dialects.anonymous
  9. Support--Buzkid 00:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Yes, because it is different sounding language. It is known from Flamenco Andalusian singers in all the world. It is very different from Castillian which is sounding strange even for South American speakers of Spanish. In some italian dialect areas it is easier to understand Andalusian person than Castillian speaking person.
  10. Support--Sabine 09:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC) I know from experience that Andalusian is not Spanish, but another language - it is not just a dialect since it is too different. Andalusian literature exists - for some more notes see my mail to the wikipedia-l. Well I am not a native speaker, nor do I really speak it - I just noted that I could understand it thanks to my speaking not only Spanish as foreign language. Building up the Neapolitan Wikipedia I know what it means to deal with non standardised spelling and I can help with uploading for example the calendar (a thing I can do for every wikipedia if you provide me with the necessary "basic information" - the tables for it are already created.
  11. Support-- Marley 13:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC) -- I support the Andalusian Wikipedia. Although I'm not a native, I understand it just as well as Standard Spanish, and can tell there's a marked difference between them. I also love Flamenco arts (music, singing, etc.).
  12. Support (N)-- Loqu 15:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC) I'm a native speaker of Andalusian, and I want my language to be respected and promoted. Since the official authorities don't seem to care, Wikipedia would be a good place to start from.
  13. Support (N)-- Caetano 19:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Andalusian Spanish predates the Reconquest by Castilian armies. For me Standard Spanish spelling with marked sound differences like aspiration of final "s" would be ideal. A total re-spelling of the language, although phonetically more accurate would be a thing for the future. Andalusian is spoken now as Asturian and Aragones are in their respective provinces. Andalusian deserves its voice in Wikipedia.
  14. Support -- GerardM 08:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC) I have learned enough about languages to know how true it is 'a language is a dialect with an army' given the UN support for minor languages and given the way people expect/dismiss suckpuppets I want to balance this a bit. In Ultimate Wiktionary we will gladly include dialects. GerardM 08:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support -- Caesarion 10:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC) We have a Ladino Wikipedia, and Ladino is obviously much closer to Spanish than Andalucian is. We have a Neapolitan Wikipedia, and Neapolitan is at least as close to Italian as Andalucian is to Spanish. From this point of view, we can't deny this variant its own Wikipedia.
    • Where did you get such funny ideas from, if I may ask? Ladino, from what little I've read or heard, is way more different from Spanish than Andalusian is, and Neapolitan, from what Italian friends have told me, is also pretty different from standard Italian. Andalusian, on the other hand, is just an accent, like say Irish English. Can you enlighten me with any lexical and grammatical differences? And don't mention the plural second person pronouns, like "ustedes cantáis", since there are similar differences in the use of pronouns in Latin American Spanish. As for lexical differences (like the word for "potato"), most of those are also extensible to Canarian and Latin American Spanish, you will find it hard to find any words that are really exclusive to Andalusian other than some slang expressions. In case you haven't noticed, the text in Andalusian a few lines below is just Spanish written with a phonetic spelling to reflect Andalusian pronunciation. Any Latin American variety, like Chilean Spanish, is much more different from mainstream Castilian Spanish than Andalusian is. --AngelRiesgo 02:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support -- ExileMan 21:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC) Andalusia is not Spain. Andalusian is not Spanish.
  17. Support (N)-- User:84.122.6.209 18:04 , 22 Nov. 2005 The best thing for you know if andalusian is a language is visit this country. Thanks"
    "I was born in Cádiz (Kai in andalusian), Personal of Wikimedia, if you will visit this county, Andalusia, you can see that here we don't speak spanish, There're people that are "serraitos" a little closed and they can't see the "new language" but they SPEAK this language, it's incredible. I'm sorry, I'm learning english. If you don't understand me I write in other language, andalusian, spanish etc..."
    "(Nasio'n kai), Perzoná de Wikimedia, jí-uttedë vizitaï ette paï, Andalusìa, uttede podreï vé k'akí nojotrö n'hablamö er eppanhol (kattellano), Hay perssonä ke son "serraitö" (un poko sserraö) i no kieren vé'r "nuev-idioma" pero ellö j-hablan ette idioma, e una coza inkreible. Lo ziento, ti aprendiendo inglé. ji tu no pueë entenderme ekkribo en otrö idiomä, andalù, kattellano ets... Gra(ss/z)iä"
    "Nacido en Cádiz. Personal de Wikimedia, Si vosotros visitáis este país, Andalucía, vosotros podréis verque aquí no se habla español, Hay gente que son "cerraditos" (un poco cerrado) y no quieren ver el "nuevo idioma" pero ellos lo hablan, es una cosa increíble. Lo siento, Yo estoy aprendiendo inglés. Si tu no has podido entenderme escribo en otros idiomas, Andaluz, Castellano etc... Gracias."
  18. Support. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 04:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support (N)-- Gustavo Camino Ordóñez
  20. Support (N)-- Susana García Muñiz
  21. Support (N)-- Juan Antonio Camino Ordóñez
  22. Support (N)-- María del Mar Camino Ordóñez
  23. Support (N)-- Carmen Ordóñez Moreno
  24. Support (N)-- María Asunción Prados Ordóñez
  25. Support (N)-- Esteban Parra Garcia
  26. Support (N) STRONGLY SUPPORT
  27. Support (N)-- Eduardo Gomez Fernandez
  28. Support (N)-- Samuel Galiano

Atenzion amigoh: agora ya tenemoh a buehtra dihpozizion un wiki pa loh andaluzeh http://andalu.wikicities.com i ke biba er Betih manke piehda!



Oppose:
  1. Oppose--Javier Carro 13:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC) Andaluz is a dialect of Spanish without an standard writing. Andaluz speakers are merely Spanish speakers with phonetic variations. It seems to me that a certain group of people are trying to create lots of Wikipedias based on Spanish dialects. The next one: my mom's village linguistic variation.
    • So are we to understand that the Catalan and Aragonese Wikipedias are rubbish as well, Javier? Caesarion Velim, non opto 14:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn´t call it rubbish, but dialect. And I didn´t talk about Catalan neither Aragonese Wikipedias. Catalan is a language derived from Latin, not from Spanish. Catalan has literature. Andaluz doesn´t. Andaluz is Spanish, but Spanish spoken with certain variations. If we create an Andaluz Wikipedia, we should also accept a Wikipedia in any of the dialects appearing in w:en:List_of_dialects_of_English. --Javier Carro 16:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
        • No Javier, only to those that are can be considered seperate languages when one considers the differences between the variety discussed and the language it is supposed to be a dialect of. It is true that the main linguistic division of the Iberian paeninsula is east-west oriented rather than north south, as a result of the rather straight Reconquista. To say that there are barely any differences between the speech of Old Castilia and Andalucia goes too far. So everyone should just take a look at some Andalucian texts, and read the article on this variant in Wikipedia. Then you can make out whether it is separate enough to be called a language. The time that gouvernments could tell us what was a language and what wasn't is over now. Caesarion [[User_talk:Caesarion|<small>Velim, non opto</small>]] 17:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree with you on your claim of separating politics and linguistics. But I think you don't see that the political claim comes from the sockpuppeter. So, you are right, have a look to the English Wikipedia article about andaluz and you'll see its differences with the standard castillian pronunciation. Because the difference is mainly pronounced. So, many people claim, even, that Andalucian is not a dialect, but just a peculiar pronunciation of Spanish with certain particular words. So, the fact of calling it dialect is to be quite generous with those longing to create a new language where it is not. And it's funny, because certain variations spread to Spanish spoken in Madrid like the "s" aspiration at the plural suffixes. Some linguists consider Andaluz as a developed form of Spanish. You ask for Andalucian texts, but, which ones? I told you that there is not Andalucian literature splitted from Spanish. Of course we could make a phonetic transcription like this sockpuppeter does, but we would be part of an experiment creating a writing system which does not exist. I strongly believe that most, most andalucians who would read this voting would be laughing at the proposal. --Javier Carro 06:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Some are of the opinion that the aspiration of final "s" in Madrid is a result of the immigrant working class reinforcing its accent on the whole community over quite some time. For example: American inner cities have developed separate English accents which reflect similar pronunciation habits. This is a cultural point which would reinforce that Andalusian is different from Standard Castilian Spanish. Caetano 19:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Now that's a curious theory. Then how do you explain that the aspiration of the s sound at the end of a syllable happens in most of the rural areas between Madrid and Andalusia? Have Andalusian immigrants taken over all of Catilla-La Mancha, Extremadura and Madrid and even border areas of Castilla y León? --AngelRiesgo 02:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose La ortografía propuesta es una invención artificiosa sin base alguna. Nadie ha escrito así nunca este dialecto, salvo una docena de iluminados mal avenidos. --Sanbec 15:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Lourdes Cardenal 17:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. OPOSSE Felipealvarez 19:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC) El Andaluz is a variety of dialects from castillian. NOT A LANGUAGE!
  5. Oppose. Because there is already a Wikipedia in Andalusian: http://es.wikipedia.org This is not a request for a new language, but a request for an innovative orthography for the Spanish language. Wikipedia dixit: w:en:Andalusian dialect. ManuelGR 21:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • According to the article in the es.wiki Andalusian is NOT a dialect of Castellano
    "El origen de la modalidad lingüística andaluza debemos buscarlo en la época andalusí, en la cual el latín vulgar hablado en Al-Andalus evolucionó hasta la lengua de alyamía, la hablada por los habitantes de Al-Andalus no relacionados con las élites dominantes (las cuales hablaban árabe o bereber). En la lengua de alyamía podemos ya encontrar bastantes de los rasgos hoy característicos de los andaluces. La posterior conquista castellana ocasionó que ambas hablas (la castellana y la andaluza) no divergieran sino que se encontraran, por lo cual hoy en día no suelen ser consideradas lenguas distintas. Al no provenir en su totalidad del castellano, algunos lingüistas opinan que no debe ser considerado diacrónicamente un dialecto de él; por eso el término que se considera más correcto para definir al andaluz (y el oficial según la Consejería de Educación y Ciencia de la Junta de Andalucía) es el de «modalidad lingüística andaluza», aunque no estén de acuerdo todos los eruditos en el tema."
    So I am also of the opion that due to politics Andalusian hasn't gotten the respect it deserves due to it's own roots in the Vulgar Latin spoken in the Betica Region of Spain and it's development through the years of Moorish occupation. Marley 19:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Las características principales del andaluz son una pronunciación bastante diferente de la castellana y un repertorio de palabras autóctonas, que sumadas a las castellanas determinan una relativa riqueza léxica. Existen asimismo algunas variaciones sintácticas y morfológicas.
  6. Oppose: In the articles, is refered as dialect and don't have a gramatical standard. --Taichi - (^_^) 23:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Some support votes are realized by an annonymus IP's in the range 80.133.2XX.XXX; this votes must be invalid.--Taichi - (^_^) 02:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Reminds me of what happened with Murcian above. This is even more of a hoax, in my opinion. -- AngelRiesgo 08:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • It isn't the same. Murcian has their own verbs, different than castilian verbs. Murcian has catalan influences... Andaluz isn't a language, is castilian with another form of writing and speech, but no more. Si no conoces el murciano y el andaluz, lo mejor que podrías hacer es no ponerte en evidencia. Lo que estas insinuando es una aberración propia de alguien que quiere meter sus narices en un tema que desconoce por completo.
          • No sé lo que quieres decir con eso de "lo que estás insinuando". Decía lo de que me recuerda al caso del murciano por lo de las IPs. En cuanto a que el murciano es mucho más diferente del español normativo que el andaluz, pienso que es cierto; y en cuanto a mi ignorancia, también tienes razón, pero en mi defensa te tengo que decir que soy un apasionado de la lingüística y que siempre me ha interesado la cuestión de las lenguas y los dialectos. He estudiado árabe y chino durante muchos años y siempre me ha llamado la atención como formas de hablar totalmente ininteligibles en estos idiomas son consideradas meros dialectos mientras que en otras partes del mundo pequeñas diferencias léxicas y gramaticales se utilizan para justificar la existencia de una lengua diferente. En estas cuestiones de lenguas y dialectos nada es blanco ni negro, todo son matices de gris y muchas veces una cuestión de identidad. Así, dos árabes o dos chinos incapaces de entenderse se ofenderán si alguien les dice que no hablan una única lengua, mientras que un serbio y un croata se ofenderán por lo contrario, si se les dice que hablan la misma lengua, aunque se entiendan a la perfección. En este caso del murciano, lo que no acabo de entender es por qué los que sois tan activistas tenéis tanto empeño en tener una wikipedia en murciano. Mientras prácticamente ningún libro de lingüística en el mundo mencione a la lengua murciana y la propia sociedad murciana no parezca tener interés en utilizar una norma culta escrita diferente de la castellana es difícil defender al murciano como una lengua diferenciada, y yo no soy partidario de que la creación de wikipedias sea un instrumento de reivindicación lingüística. Y que quede claro que no estoy diciendo que no exista una forma de hablar murciana. Lo que me parece discutible es que se la pueda llamar lengua y que tenga sentido crear una norma culta escrita basada en esa forma de hablar popular. Si lo conseguís, no me parece ni bien ni mal, pero no creo que una wikipedia sea la manera de empezar a promover una lengua escrita. Y ésta es sólo una opinión, pero tan válida como la tuya o la de cualquier otro. --AngelRiesgo 02:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


  1. Oppose This is absurd. What next? Different wikipedias for those who speak rhotic and non-rhotic varieties of English? How about splitting the German Wikipedia between those who say Saturday as Samstag and those who say Sonnabend? And I gather those French speakers in Switzerland and Belgium who can't cope with funny numbers like quatre-vingts deserve their own wikipedias too. The lexical differences between Andalusian dialects and mainstream Castilian Spanish are minimal. It is mainly a different accent, in many respects closer to Latin American Spanish than to other peninsular varieties. Anyway, I wonder if the people who support this are serious at all. Apart from the bogus user names, some of the comments are little more than jokes, like the one saying "I am Spanish and I don't understand Andalusian". This is sometimes said in a jocular way in Spain, a bit like when an English person says "I'm very bad at languages. I can't even understand Geordie!". --AngelRiesgo 08:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, okay. Blockinblox 17:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: it 'a fictional language. Only a group of nonhomogenous dialects. Rata de Biblioteca 10:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • "Hemogenia" dialects? Learn English before you state your opinion! If you mean homogeneous, I can do nothing but contradict you: of course not all of the dialects are the same, but they do share a lot of common features. And it is certainly not a fictional language. Do you know what a fictional language is? Obviously not: a fictional language is a language that was conceived by one person or a few people for fun, or for use in fiction. Do you really wish to liken Andalucian to Klingon, Quenya and Sindarin??? Caesarion 12:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    He's speaking Spanglish, a real language. What about a Wikipedia of this spoken language? Let's take Wikipedia more seriously. By the way, do you have to know English to state your opinion in Meta, what happened to the plurilingual philosophy of Meta? Andalusian is a real variety of Spanish but fictional as a language. Don't be fooled by two or three extremists. ManuelGR 20:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    Let Rata write in Spanish if he is incapable of writing English, I for one will tolerate that, though I'll have to reply in English. What I will not tolerate, however, is that you label those who consider Andalucian a separate language as "extremists". These are ordinary people with their own views which may not concord with yours, but whom you cannot simply dismiss as "extremists"! Caesarion 16:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    Why not? They are ordinary people with their own extremist view. That's my humble opinion. Tolerate it or not, I don't matter. ManuelGR 13:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. OPPOSEAnna 21:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC) I agree with Javier Carro's opinion.
  5. Oppose Arbeo 14:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Having a basic knowledge of Spanish, I can read the Andalusian test WP without difficulty. There is absolutely no convincing evidence that this is a distinct language. Arbeo 14:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Joanot 10:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC) Andalusian have not enough entity in order to be able considered as dialect. Is the same case of Valencian with Catalan, but diferent about Murcian with Spanish. The only one difference with the Spanish WP would be a different writting norms.
  7. Oppose for many many reasons. Among those: not being recognized as a separate language by nobody, lacking a standarized form, being a politically motivated request. Ejrrjs 23:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This is funny, only because a language is not yet recognised as a separate language it is not there ... well if you asked this question some time ago for Neapolitan or Sicilian or Venetian or whatever Italian minor language "none of those" would have been there. Going back in history you will find that the Neapolitan language was very much influenced by the Andalusian language, this during the invasions of the Arabs in that region and in the Reign of the two Sicilies ... really I do not know the complete history - what I know is only about languages.
    It is obvious why governments don't want "local languages" to live ... they fear that a separation would be the next step not knowing that if they let the identity of such small regions live these small regions will assure that there is going to be unity. Not allowing for diversity creates the "need of separation" allowing for diversity creates the "need of unity" and really I am wondering why politicians do not understand that simple rule.
    In Andalusia you have people tell the kids to "speak well" meaning to speak Spanish (well what is called Spanish) and not their local language - we still have the exactly same behaviour here in Campania. People are still taught that their local language is only a low level thingie, for non instructed people ... well make the language of a people die and you make the people die. A people without language is not a people anymore - a people without past has no future - and such a people has NO identity - and this is the most pericolous thing of all. People having no identity will not care about certain things.
    In this sense I wish you all a wonderful Sunday. --Sabine 07:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose rsg (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC) I agree with Javier Carro's opinion.
  9. Oppose Edub 12:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Mild Oppose Chlewey 16:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC). I am pretty much sure that any Andalusian that is literally enough to use a Wikipedia, would rather use a more complete encyclopedia in the language they know how to read and write: standard Spanish/Castilian than learning a new orthography. A Wikipedia in Andalusian would rather handicap than empower Andalusians.
  11. Oppose Languages should not gain legitamacy at Wikipedia, rather NPOV insists that a language be independently verifiable as distinct prior to being authorized as a new language on the wiki. I am not convinced by the arguments above that such a standard has been met. Trodel 01:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Opose Andalucian ins't a language. Is a variant of castilian, and not have 8.000.000 speakers. This was an unregistered user on 1 dic 2005. Interesting... Loqu 18:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. 'Oppose Lo siento, pero me opongo a esta idea sin ningún motivo ofensivo. Es que creo que el dialecto de Andalusia no merece su propia Wikipedia. Espero no haber ofendido a nadie. --Chris 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose --Kokoo 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - Who could seriously call Andalusian a _language_? Raetius 11:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose --SMP 16:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Everything can be discussed here but cheating will not be tolerated. I simply don't believe that three Germans get up in the middle of the night just to register themselves at Meta (all with their complete first and last names, very unusual) and express their support for an Andalusian WP within an eight minute span of time. Please correct the dishonest parts and then we resume the discussion! Arbeo 16:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      • NB: One more thing is really suspicious. The votes of the supporters "Sandra Röminger" through "Oplico" all show the same very uncommon structure used by nobody else (first "support", then the user name, after that a comment and lastly the date). The preceding four all knew how to insert the current date without making their IPs show up, which is not less unusual. I really feel like deleting them all. Arbeo 16:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • You're right, someone is sockpuppeting. Caesarion [[User_talk:Caesarion|<small>Velim, non opto</small>]] 17:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Does Wikimedia promote experiments for language creation? If the Wikipedia in Andalusian is created I foresee this is going to happen:
  1. A small minority will gather to edit the new wiki.
  2. They will start to fight for the spelling, because there is not a writting standard. See the test-wp history: [1].
  3. Someone will write a bot that translates from the Spanish Wikipedia to the Andalusina one, changing the spelling so it looks more andalusian in his own view. The grammar don't matter, it's just the same. Wikimedia resources will be consequently spoiled.
  4. People will start to get bored of their old toy and will abandone the project. There will never be a consensus about the spelling.
  5. Andalusian Wikipedia will be a dead project and a spam paradise.

It is my opinion that Andalusian is not a different language from Spanish, but it is a fact, and not a opinion, that there is no spelling norm for this theorical language. Wikipedia is not the site for creating a language norm and making experiments. ManuelGR 13:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Wikimedia does not promote experiments for language creation. Let's see to get your points right:
  1. At the beginning it will be a small minority and this small minority has the right to do just like others.
  2. Fight for spelling: well this depends very much on who is leading the project - within wikipedia we have good and bad experiences of that - the good ones survive - the bad one dies. Talking about spelling standards is always a difficult thingie, in particular for languages that have not been written for centuries or only in songs and poems. We have these situations in different wikipedias: one is Neapolitan where I am admin - there is a very simple thing you can do: be tolerant ... and I suppose that if you talk with people those not being tolerant will go away - the tolerant ones will remain and the project will maybe grow a bit slower, but with more success.
  3. A bot? You are joking, aren't you? Some kind of Babelfish for Andalusian? Well if you think in such a negative way ... sorry I cannot help you. The grammar does matter since even that is different - slightly different, but there are differences. Of course there are such things as CAT-Tools like OmegaT that can help you doing translations by giving you glossary items or 100% match sentences if some sentences were already translated before, but an automatic thingie is much too far away to be used for such stuff. CAT-Tools, if used properly, can make you really fast ... well you will see this on the Neapolitan wikipedia. I will use all instruments a translator has at disposal to get certain "regular" stuff done ... and of course I use bots to upload pages I prepared offline, add interwiki-links, create the calendar or whatever. But these are used on many Wikipedias and they only help you to work more efficiently avoiding to waste time.
  4. People will not get bored - it all depends on the right admins. As I already said in several e-mails: being an admin of a Wikipedia in a minor language you do not have an easy life. It is much more about keeping people motivated, about not stopping even if you are the only person in the world editing, about printing pages and give them to people who have no internet access, about creating projects and stuff people can work on, about reaching out to discussion lists and forums about that language, about printing relevant articles and putting them on a blackboard of the town hall, schools, churches, universities. And I bet with you: people who want to maintain their language will do all that. Often people don't know what they can do - but once they know ... you would be surprised how much even only one single motivated person can do.
  5. If a project is dead this just means that it is waiting for someone to come and clean up ... well these people sooner or later come up. Spam: it is not so much work to go after a small wikipedia - anyone having admin rights and understanding the language can go there once a week and at least clean up. Wikipedia is about co-operation and making an encyclopaedia available to each person in the world in their own language, about being positive in thought, fact and deed and not about seeing only difficulties before a project starts.
We have only one life to live.... one life to give .... when it is over it is over. These might be strange words from a person like me: well I had my experiences. And these experiences lead me to do exactly what I feel I need to do. Tomorrow can be too late.
Time ago I saw a video about an account - a time account - and this account is filled up every day with 24 hours having 60 minutes each. Once the day is over the minutes and hours that were not used in a positive way are just gone - you cannot get them back. You just have the possibility to decide to use each one of these new 24 hours with 60 minutes each as positivly as possible. Well: do it. I am sure you can. I am sure you have thousands of things that should get done: don't wait and just start doing.
As I told you: this is a wikipedia where I can say it has a right to live, it has a right for a chance. I cannot say this for all minor language wikipedias since I do not know enough about all those languages. But if there are things where I can help and I have the time to do so: well I will do it. My actual to do list is long ... but it is so long because I want to get things done. Some will never be done, but at least I try.
Think about your time account and how to use it - then think about the right to live and have an identity you want yourself - and then think about what you can do to help others to get this - and then consider if you would like to be prevented in doing things you stand for - and then think if you really want to prevent these motivated people from trying to go their way.
Hmmmm .... there's not much to add ... I suppose this is already too much for some of you...
Thank you for having taken the time to read this.
--Sabine 18:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Your arguments are fair, but they fail in the main premise. You are talking about Wikipedias in minority languages and about their struggle for survival. I support all your arguments. On the other hand, Andalusian Spanish is not a minority language but a majority dialect or language modality (whatever term is prefered). The great majority of people in Andalusia will feel offended if we say them they don't talk Spanish but a different language, and that they should read that new bizarrely-spelled Wikipedia. I think most of them will think we are joking. ManuelGR 18:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Without consideration of whether the language should exist or not, the vote above does not seem fair to me at all. I am not convinced anonymous votes should be authorized and I am totally convinced sockpuppetry is very unfair. Per one participant request, I run a quick ip check over some username, and consider there is high chance several votes are from the same person. I raised the issue on foundation-l@wikimedia.org Anthere 17:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Some of us may be using a network, how can we differentiate between actual users sharing a single IP behind a firewall or proxy? I believe that perhaps an established user may have a history of edits etc. What do you think? Caetano 15:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The last resort: remove opposing votes as one anonymous user has done here: [2]. What next? ManuelGR 20:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
        • The last support votes are totally invalid; this is not a circus or the place for make personal caprices. This is a serious project, please.--Taichi - (^_^) 21:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: Another supernatural phenomenon here: the proposer of this wiki, Rautjes (btw: does anybody know him?), expressed his support 23:05, 13 Nov. 2005 (UTC) and within that very same minute a second native speaker of Andulasian, Aranui (real person?), appeared here out of nowhere. (cf. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages&diff=next&oldid=235636) Arbeo 14:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I deleted "Aranui" from the list today because he did not register himself there but was registered by Rautjes. Arbeo 22:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


Support nl:Boudewijn Idema, 20:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)