Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Gronings

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
main page Request for a new language edition: Wikipedia Gronings
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.

A committee member provided the following comment:

See rule #3 under "Requisites for eligibility" in the Language proposal policy. LangCom believes that Gronings is not a sufficiently different language; between Low German Wikipedia and Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia this ground is sufficiently covered. In fact, there is a small Gronings section in the Dutch Low Saxon project. For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • The community needs to complete required MediaWiki interface translations in that language (about localization, translatewiki, check completion).
  • The community needs to discuss and complete the settings table below:
What Value Example / Explanation
Proposal
Language code gos (SILEthnologue) A valid ISO 639-1 or 639-3 language code, like "fr", "de", "nso", ...
Language name Gronings Language name in English
Language name Grunnegs Language name in your language. This will appear in the language list on Special:Preferences, in the interwiki sidebar on other wikis, ...
Language Wikidata item Q508854 - item has currently the following values:
  • en label = Gronings
  • native label (P1705) =
  • instance/subclass (P31/P279) = language, modern language / Dutch Low Saxon
  • Wikimedia language code (P424) =
  • writing system (P282) =
  • number of speakers (P1098) =


Item about the language at Wikidata. It would normally include the Wikimedia language code, name of the language, etc. Please complete at Wikidata if needed.
Community
You can optionally list your user name if you are an active contributor to the test wiki. Add "N" next to your name if you are a native speaker of this language.
Links Links to previous requests, or references to external websites or documents.
Settings
Project name Wikipedy "Wikipedia" in your language
Project namespace usually the same as the project name
Project talk namespace "Wikipedia talk" (the discussion namespace of the project namespace)
Enable uploads no 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.
Optional settings
Project logo File:... 135x135 PNG derivative from a decent SVG image (instructions)
Default project timezone Europe/Amsterdam "Continent/City", e.g. "Europe/Brussels" or "America/Mexico City" (see list of valid timezones)
Additional namespaces For example for a Wikisource which would need "Page", "Page talk", "Index", "Index talk"
Additional settings Anything else that should be set
submit phabricator task (includes everything automatically, except additional namespaces/settings)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal[edit]

The only regional dialect in the Netherlands with its own anthem. Unintelligible to other Low Saxon speakers. Also with ties to East Frisian Low saxon. Eitansh (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Language has a language code, so is probably theoretically eligible. However, there is already a Gronings section of the Low Saxon Wikipedia. (See nds-nl:Portoal:Grunnen.) So there is no reason to start a separate project. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Gronings is unique and incompatible with other low german dialects.. Also, Westphalian (another low saxon variety) has achieved eligible status based upon it's low compatibility. So in my opinion Gronings deserves its own wikipedia just as much as West Frisian. Eitansh (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

As Steven pointed above, there's a portal on nds-nlwiki, maybe @Droadnaegel, Grönneger 1, Ni'jluuseger, Servien, Steinbach, and Woolters: (sysops of nds-nlwiki) can tell me if they agree to split Gronings contents to an individual wiki or not. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, this is not a good idea. Eitanish has also requested an East Frisian Wikipedia, to which I already spoke out my opposition. The same arguments apply to this case as well.
The Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands are a cluster several dialects, all of which are incompatible with one another to some extent. Splitting Gronings off would set a precedent: other Low Saxon dialects have their own ISO codes as well; they, too, would have to be granted their own Wikipedias. While it is true that Gronings differs a lot from other Low Saxon dialects, the same goes for West-Veluws and Twents. None of these differences have, in the past, proved insurmountable.
When the Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia was created in 2006, this wasn't done for linguistic reasons, but out of practical considerations. The language of the regular Low Saxon Wikipedia was just too opaque for most Low Saxon speakers in the Netherlands. For one thing, Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands use Dutch-based spellings. For another, Dutch Low Saxon dialects rely on Dutch rather than German for new words. Especially in the context of an encyclopedia, reading w:nds: would require a solid knowledge of German. Creating a Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia proved to be the right decision: it worked.
Yes, Eitanish would say at this point, you have now explained why it was a good idea to split off the Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia. But if Gronings were to be split off, wouldn't both wikis benefit from that, by not having to read one another's dialects? Wouldn't a Gronings Wikipedia draw more Groningers? I'm afraid it wouldn't. Or at least, the effect would be disappointing. From my 13 years of experience on the Limburgish Wikipedia, I know projects like these only draw so many contributors. Relatively few people can write their own dialect, and many don't take the trouble. Some are just afraid of doing something wrong. A Gronings Wikipedia could be dormant for years, literally, only drawing vandalism and spam stubs about Brazilian actresses or villages in Bulgaria by people who don't know the language. That's not what you want.
Last but not least, what is Gronings? The dialect does not stop at the provincial border. Many dialects in North and East Drenthe are in fact more Gronings than what they speak in the west of Groningen. They are just as compatible or incompatible with the rest of Low Saxon. The current system is clear and positive: whatever Low Saxon dialect is spoken in Netherlands can be used. Let's keep it that way. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 11:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Steinbach. Firstly, Grönningen most certainly isn't the only dialect with its own anthem. Salland and Twente have one, and even the small town of Riessen in Twente has one. If that was a criterium, Riessens should have its own wiki as well.
Secondly, Grönningsk isn't as incomprehensible to us other Saxons as the requester claims (wishes?). Moreover, this isn't something proper exposure can't overcome. The more I hear Grönningsk, the more obvious similarities I see in grammar, vocabulary, and idioms, which only underline Grönningsk's rightful place between the rest of the Low Saxon dialects.
Thirdly, I cannot think of scientific grounds for this endeavour. Woolters 22:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
On the Dutch Low Saxon wiki there aren't that many articles in Gronings (mostly from one or two contributors). Creating a separate wiki would be totally illogical, and I do not think a lot of people would contribute. Beside the fact that Gronings is very similar (in vocabulary and grammar) to the surrounding dialects (with which it forms a dialect continuum) people can already read and write articles in Gronings (in their preferred writing system as listed on nds-nl:Wikipedie:Spelling) on the nds-nl.wiki. Unfortunately we haven't had a large number of contributors so far. If users decide that they would like the main page of the nds-nl.wiki in their dialect (group), they are more than welcome to add their own translation on a separate page (for example Veurblad/Grunnegs) to which the current main page would link (like on the Alemannic Wikipedia), as long as it's kept up to date. Servien (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
As Steinbach has mentioned, I've already requested another Wikipedia for a different dialect. However, my intention wasn't for dissemblement of Low-Saxon, but rather to preserve the integrity of the whole.
A common Gronings -East-Frisian Low-Saxon Wikipedia Wiki would do, as bridge between the Low Saxon dialects on both sides of the border, a prominent factor of dialect continuity over political division. Although holding on to a single Nether-Saxon Wiki would be somewhat consequential to its recognition by the official Dutch government as one entity, history has proven their stance to be devistatingly inaffective. Moreover dialect significancy is tightly knit to identity. Gronings already has better familiarity over other dialects with a confined base, unique phrases, set vocabulary and spelling. So unifying it with its twin dialect East Frisian Low Saxon would give it a stronger sense of distinctive identity to its speakers, thus gradually it will attract more contributers and hopefully will support the Low German continuuity as a whole.

Eitansh (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.