Discuss the creation of this language project on this page. Votes will be ignored when judging the proposal. Please provide arguments or reasons and be prepared to defend them (see the Language proposal policy).
The language committee needs to verify the language is eligible to be approved.
Check that the project does not already exist (see list).
Ensure the requested language is sufficiently unique that it could not exist on a more general wiki.
Ensure that there are a sufficient number of native editors of that language to merit an edition in that language.
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.
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.
"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.
For example, a Wikisource would need "Page", "Page talk", "Index", "Index talk", "Author", "Author talk".
Additional settings
Additional user groups: Rollbackers and autopatrollers (both groups should be added and removed by sysops)
Anything else that should be set
Once settings are finalized, a committee member will submit a Phabricator task requesting creation of the wiki. (This will include everything automatically, except the additional namespaces/settings.) After the task is created, it should be linked to in a comment under "final decision" above.
Gulf Pidgin Arabic (GPA) speakers form the largest expat group in Arabia, with over 22 million speakers residing in the region. GPA deserves its own Wikipedia, similar to its sisters, Egyptian and Moroccan Arabic. It is the primary lingua franca used for communication between Arabs and South Asians.
Oppose Working from w:Gulf Pidgin Arabic, it doesn't seem to have an ISO 639-3 code, it's identified as without native speakers and it's unclear as an unstandardized pidgin whether it could even get an ISO 693-3 code.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many Wikipedia language editions do not have a native-speaking population or a standardized vocabulary (such as arz and ary), and they may contain original research. Additionally, some Wikipedias, like Simple English, do not have an ISO code. Therefore, I do not think this is a valid reason to exclude Gulf Pidgin Arabic from Wikipedia, especially from the perspective of a native speaker. Almajidy (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Simple English Wikipedia would not be opened today. At the very least, if you want a project open, you need to have an ISO 639-3 code, or have tried to get one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because Gulf Pidgin Arabic is almost identical to the Arabic language, and there is already an Arabic Wikipedia, so there is no need for a Gulf Wikipedia.
Additionally, Gulf Pidgin Arabic is not suitable for creating an independent Wikipedia edition because it does not have a fixed or standardized linguistic system. It varies significantly across different Gulf regions and countries and it is not a unified language across the Gulf countries, so which country’s dialect would it be written in ? Each country has a different dialect from the others. and there are no established rules or standardized dictionaries that could support building an encyclopedic project. It is also classified as a pidgin language rather than a fully developed, stable language used across generations, which makes it unsuitable for writing complex and precise encyclopedic content such as Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, it lacks widespread written usage, literary traditions, and sufficient knowledge production, all of which are essential requirements for a successful language-based encyclopedic project. Its boundaries are also unclear, as speakers often use a mixture of Modern Standard Arabic, different dialects, and other languages, making it difficult to clearly define what belongs to the language and what does not. ~2026-26206-68 (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I don't mean for this to be a request for a Gulf Wikipedia (لهجة خليجية). This is a request for Gulf Pidgin Arabic (عربية الخليج الهجينة), also known as "Arabi Hindi."
If we have "unneeded" Wikipedias such as Egyptian, Simple English, and Darija, I believe an Indo-Gulf version is even more important. Almajidy (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The pidgin in question does not seem to have native speakers, so you should rather request wikipedia versions for the native languages of the persons using it as an auxiliary language. By the way, many South Asian languages already have wikipedias, so there is no reason why their speakers residing in Gulf countries could not use wikipedias in their mother tongues. On the other hand, the person posing the request seems to be a native speaker of Gulf Arabic who probably uses Gulf Pidgin Arabic only with his employees not capable of understanding Gulf Arabic, so it is incomprehensible that he does not demand a wikipedia in Gulf Arabic. Independently of these questions, the latest statement of the requester seems to indicate that his request is not meant to be serious, as he erroneously equates Gulf Pidgin Arabic with Egyptian Arabic and Moroccan Arabic, languages which have been spoken as mother tongues by millions of people since many centuries, although they may have arisen in a language contact situation somewhat simular to Gulf Pidgin Arabic, only that this occurred more than thousand years ago after the initial Arabic conquest of North Africa, when Coptic or Amazigh speakers tried to communicate with Arabs. If in some future development Gulf Pidgin Arabic will have been nativized and become the mother tongue of a significant number of people, the request might be posed again. Otherwise, it seems rather to be an attempt to mock the feelings of native speakers of North African Arabic varieties.--~2026-26868-63 (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
