A committee member provided the following comment:
This is a dialect of English and as such can't get an own wiki per the policy. It would also lack a proper ISO code. --MF-W 00:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The community needs to develop an active test project; it must remain active until approval (automated statistics, recent changes). It is generally considered active if the analysis lists at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months.
"Wikipedia talk" (the discussion namespace of the project namespace)
Default is "no". Preferably, files should be uploaded to Commons.
If you want, you can enable local file uploading, either by any user ("yes") or by administrators only ("admin"). Notes: (1) This setting can be changed afterwards. The setting can only be "yes" or "admin" at approval if the test creates an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) first. (2) Files on Commons can be used on all Wikis. (3) Uploading fair-use images is not allowed on Commons (more info). (4) Localisation to your language may be insufficient on Commons.
Until relatively recently, people from across the United states spoke in a handful of different ways,
each area contained its own unique vocabulary and its own ways of expression.
That being said, the Appalacian region was particularly full of 'em.
Since it was originaly settled by people of diverse backgrounds, with such a lovely blend of Scots and irish,
many archaic words and expressions were preserved.
Note: I will be contribute and I hope we will begin to see more english variaties on Wikipedia as it lets other languages do.
Appalachian English is not a dialect, nor a language. It's a conservative way of life.. --Eitanish (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the question arises whether one's dealing with a dialect or language. We can't simpely add every single kind of speech on Wikipedia, can we? The exceptions here are:
It derives many of its futures from earler forms of English
It exists even before American English was standardised
It was quite isolated from the others, which gave it some time to develope independently.
The same claim here you can make about Scots or Northumbia --Eitanish (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but Scots is a real language that diverged from modern English after the Middle English phase. Appalachian English doesn't even have an ISO code, which is a requirement for languages to get a Wikipedia. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know it has been rejected, but Hiberno English originated in the very same fashion as Scots, and is much further from Modern English than Scots is. It contains syntax and words directly from Old Irish and Old Norse, just like Scots. The only justification for a Scots wiki is that it has an ISO code. ISO codes, regardless of whether they are a requirement or not, does not officialise a language. ISO are are a Swiss NGO who's specialises in standardisation, not linguistics. How exactly can they have the overriding authority to govern Wikipedia versions?
On top of this, in linguistics, there is no distinction between a language and a dialect. They vary depending on who you ask. It can be argued that all languages are dialects of each other, and that all dialects (and even personal/ familial vernacular) are independent little languages. I suggest you educate yourself on Anglic dialects before you go off and try to educated others, which seems to be a very common thin among the Scots debate here. Uamaol (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already am familiar with the some of the Anglic languages and dialects (as well as English creoles/pidgins), like Scots and Yola. Whether you like it or not, having an ISO 639-3 code is a requirement for Wikipedias and I don't think that will change anytime soon. I agree that there's no consistent definition of languages and dialects. In fact, I wrote something to that effect Special:Diff/7880488. In fact I wrote this a year ago (Feb 2014): "Rather than dealing with the difference between dialect and language (which is arbitrary)..." However, there are some tools to measure the distance between language varieties, such as Ausbausprache (and mutual intelligibility, which is included in Abstandsprache). You really think to seem I'm 100% stupid about linguists, but I'm really only about 99% stupid. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]