Jump to content

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Palatinate German

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Palatinate German Wikipedia[edit]

See the second request (approved).
submitted verification final decision
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 02:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  1. Support I am a native pfälzisch speaker and I support a pfälzisch Wikipedia. Many things, at least the history of this area are worth to be described in the pfälzisch language. --Gsh de 21:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - SaorhGumpaetx 15:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support--Conceyeiru 19:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) I think they can devolope its own wiki[reply]
  4. Support--Llionés 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC) I lived for years in this German region and learned to love its dialect or language, which you don't understand if you only speak upper German.[reply]
    Support--Fratele lui Bonaparte, il cunosti? 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Indefinitely blocked user —Pill δ 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Belgian man (nl na en) 13:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Caesarion Dear anonymous user, did you post a message about this at de:Wikipedia:Fragen zur Wikipedia? 13:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Come on. There is a Ripuarian Wikipedia, so why not a Palation one??? --Abzt 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. moderate Support. I love the language, several near to me use it every day. I cannot support it as an author because I'm not in sufficient command of the language. Hint: Approved_requests_for_new_languages has a section titled Pennsylvania German which is a closely related yet distinct language. Purodha Blissenbach 01:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SUPPORT well, it's the same old story and dance... if we use such a deletionist criteria, then NO language is needed, apart from US English. Who on earth is going to use a computer without knowing at least basic English? So why on earth would you need a German wiki at all? Still you have it, and it made a wonderful edition, too. I think these guys have the right to speak and write as they wish (no matter whether you call this a language, a dialect, or just a mispronounciation). If they can make a good wiki, then why not? And since it's so easy for Germans to read and speak in Pfälzisch (it's just a different sound, isn't it? ;) then de.wiki will have no problems in importing any interesting content from it. That's if we have to be logical (which is the very least you'd expect from people writing an encyclopedia). --Bertodsera 10:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. SupportI am a native speaker of Palatian, and would help with a palatian Wiki, whether it exists. If the alemannic wikipedia has a "right to exist", I would say a Palatian would have it, too. I would also propose another language code. PAL would be more apposite than PFL. If you aquate the "ä" with the "a", PAL would be the first three letters of te language name in English (Palatinate), and in Palatian itself (Pälzisch). PaelzerBu 13:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support.--Harvzsf 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --Melancholie 04:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just changed the title, cause I had counted six supports, and not just five ;-) --de:Benutzer:SPS 13.02.2006 12:46 (CET)
  13. Support Ciosek 20:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC) I see more logical arguments for support than to negate. Arguments for opose are quite illogical and some discriminatory - show NPOV love to standardization. w:Germanic substrate hypothesis[reply]
  14. Support A language, not a dialect. nl:Boudewijn Idema , 13:52 , 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    Title actualized once again --de:Benutzer:SPS 22:20, 10 April 2006 (CEST)
  15. Support Like someone said, Ripuarian is a dialect of German, and we have that. 22:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    Just a remark: I'm not veryknowledgeable about the Riparian, but I would say there are hundreds of them Riparian dialects, ranging from 'almost' Dutch of Heinsberg to 'almoist' Luxemburgian in the Eifel tops to 'almost' Palatinean somehere bwtween Koblenz/Mayen to indistinguishable from Limburgsian around Venlo to something very Plattdüütsch-like along a line from north of Oberhausen - Düsseldorf - Gummersbach - Siegen. All the mentioned 'Neighbors' but the Palatinians have their own Wikipedias, all are flourishing, and so is the Riparian. Good for Palatinian, I think, they will do well, too.
  16. Support de:Benutzer:Elvis untot 14:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support I would like to answer to some of the arguments used by the opponents of the proposal: Indeed, Pfälzisch is just a dialect but that is true for Alemannisch, Ripuarisch, Limburgisch and many other Wikipedias. If you read a text in Pfälzisch and know High German, you will surely be able to see a large difference, maybe more than between Czech and Slovakian, Croatian and Serbian, Danish and Norwegian, which are considered separate languages just for political reasons. Also, dialect does not simply mean a mispronunciation or a variation in pronunciation, for German linguists Dialekt means there is a different grammar and some different idioms (in Palatinian there are some taken from French and Yiddish), while a Mundart is more a regional pronunciation of the standard language. Examples for a Mundart are Sächsisch or Hessisch but I would not vote against a Wikipedia in Sächsisch, Hessisch, Fränkisch etc, as there are still enough people to work on the Standard German version, maybe even more because who can write good articles in a dialect will probably be able to do so in Standard German. There are theoretically be hundreds of thousands of people who speak Palatinian actively, are able to use a computer and to write articles, although the language is rarely to hear in towns like Heidelberg because it is considered as a sign for poor education and little knowledge by people who did not learn it in their youth. This process could be turned if a Wikipedia in Palatinian could motivate more people to write in what is actually their mother tongue. In rural areas in the west of the Palatine it is used in shops, offices, schools, restaurants and theatres and Standard German is somehow considered to be foreign and unusual, although all official documents are in Standard German because Palatinian is not considered a minority language like Plattdüütsch or Alsatian in France. If you ever heard German high-ranking politicians like Kurt Beck or Helmut Kohl speak on local event in the home area, you would quickly forget the idea that Pfälzisch is just a variation of High German. There should not be too many problems with orthography, as everybody could write in the dialect of his hometown, all of them are understandable (there is no need to have one Wikipedia in the dialect of Ludwigshafen and another one in that of Kaiserslautern, Mannheim, Heidelberg and so on - as little as there is a need to have several Wikipedias in the dialects of Leipzig, Dresden or Chemnitz;-)), as there is no standard orthography of written Palatinian no form can be considered wrong as long is someone speaks it and writes in it; the main thing is people write in the language they (or at least their parents and grand-parents) speak, which is classical and pure Palatinian. A Wikipedia in a dialect or a local language naturally never has a high scientific level, people write more about regional or every-day topics, articles on elaborate and more complicate topics are mostly direct translations but they never form the main part of the encyclopedia. By the way: There are versions in Manx and Cornish, which are actually extinct languages, Latin, which is not used by anybody as a mother tongue for centuries and even Gothic, in which just a few words are still known to us. As long as some people are interested in writing articles and know the dialect good enough to do so, there are no reasons against setting up a new Wikipedia. de:Benutzer:stefanbw 01:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    Well said. From experience, I agree, discussing orthography/spelling is futile. This has implications:
    You may need quite many redirects for spelling variants. There is a tool under development that can make bulk submissions easy.
    You'll have to have a way to decide which spelling is going to be an article name. Pragmatic approach: keep the 1st writer's choice. Chances are, that creates an even distribution and no-one feels set back.
    You may need to (or want to) keep text consistent, at least at times. That needs contributors with awareness and knowledge.
    Category names are more problematic than article names, since their spelling has to be remembered by writers, who don't want to engage in time consuming look-ups all the time. There is a tool under development for navigating the category tree and select some for insertion.
    If there is demand, and/or there are suficiently different orthograpies, you may want, or even need to have, variant spellings of the language user interface. If present, these can be selected in the user preferences. Serbian and Chinese have that already. The group of Ripuarian languages will, too.
    Good luck! --Purodha Blissenbach 01:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support -- de:Benutzer:Mundartpoet 21:55, 6 Aug 2006 (CEST)
  19. Support. A very unique dialect of German--my great-grandmother spoke it. en:User:Caponer --Caponer 21:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. SupportI can't believe some of you actually oppose this.Cameron Nedland 00:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I lived years in that German region and learned to love Pfälzisch.--Llionés 16:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support -- Tobias Conradi 01:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Sroulik 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I refer to Purodha's insightful comments. --Lumijaguaari 07:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. We have many actuve wikipedias in German dialects. The argument that such wikipedias are not needed 'cause dialect speakers understand German should not be taken seriously: almoust every Catalan speaker understands Spanish, every Occitan speaker understands French, almoust every Belorusian speaker understands Russian... Still, all these languages have own wikipedias. Kneiphof 15:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Node ue 06:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Like Ripuarian, Palatinian has a language history of its own within the community of languages which form the German language area. de:Benutzer:Reise-Line
    support71.142.79.248 05:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC) not registred —Pill δ 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support --Yes0song 14:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support -- 21:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Oppose - Who on earth would benefit from a Wikipedia in this German dialect? Not a single person because _every_ single speaker knows High German just as well or better. I don't live there but I bet when they write something down they write it down not in dialect but in High German like just everybody else in Germany. High German has specialised terms for all fields of science, the dialects mostly don't. The High German wikipedia will always be a source of information many times bigger and better then the Pfälzisch one - so the Pfälzisch one will actually be useless. I could go on with a few more points but I think it's enough now. -- Raetius 11:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We have had some very similar discussions before: Pfälzisch should be considered a seperate language - and would, if the concepts of Germany, Germans and "the" German language didn't exist. Caesarion 13:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Raetius is wrong. I personally know many people from Palatinate who do not speak the so called "High German" although they moderately understand it on TV etc. when they read (German) books or newspapers loudly, they do so in palatinian. Whenever wording or grammar do not match well enough, the outcome is funny for non-Palatinians. The majority of those people is from rural areas, elderly, hardly computer-literate, neither reading or writing English; so they're unlikely to show up here and vote. -- Purodha Blissenbach 13:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Pfälzisch is not a separate language, just a specific mispronouncing of a German province. Moreover, where should this trend to create new splitted WPs lead? 21:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC) no anon votes, sorry. please log in.[reply]
    Sorry, but if still have the dumb conviction that regioanl languages are "mispronunciations" of standard languages, you have absolutely NO business here!!! Dialects are older, much, much older than standard languages, start reading at least something about West Germanic dialects before you ever do one edit to this page again! Caesarion 23:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - as it was said, no one there would write down something in that dialect. The only German Dialects which are sometimes used as a written language are (AFAIK) Lower German and Swiss German, which both have already a Wikipedia. Everyone who speaks/understands Pfälzisch can also understand High German and get information at de:. That Pfälzisch Wikipedia would only be a copy of some easy "translated" de: articles to have many language links in the articles in High German. --Steffen Löwe Gera 09:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No it wouldn't. Any new Wikipedia is created of its own. The Limburgic Wikipedia is not just an easy translation of the Dutch Wikipedia, neither are the Platt and Alemannic Wikipedias, even though they all know German and write it with more ease than their own vernacular language. Any natural language (and Pfälzisch is a language of its own indeed!) deserves to be written down and cultivated, no matter whether it suffers low prestige or the presence of a standard language. The only thing we should be worried about is whether there are contributors for it, or perhaps if the proposed Wikipedia will not be redundant with an existing project. Caesarion 09:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. No need for this. It's not Wikipedia's business to cultivate languages. All Pfälzisch speakers benefit from the German Wikipedia just as much as all the other German speakers do. That should suffice. – Jondor 13:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be WP's business to cultivate languages, but it certainly is Wikipedia's business to help out those who cultivate their languages and give them the opportunity to make their own Wikipedia. Mr. Jondor, all Catalan speakers can use the Spanish Wikipedia very well, but the Catalan Wikipedia was created on the very same day as the Spanish was. So not allowing certain languages their own Wikipedias goes counter to the policy Wikipedia has been leading for five years now. Caesarion 13:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Pfälzisch is German. There is one common standard for writing German that covers all regional spoken variants. No other standard than Hochdeutsch is ever used in non-fictional texts (for good reasons, I guess). Ignoring this fact and trying to create Wikipedias for all different spoken "Germans" will very probably lead to a plethora of incomplete, unreliable wikis of inferior quality forever redundant with the mutually intelligible, first-rate standard German WP. Nichts gegen Lokalpatriotismus - but I'd strongly disencourage such a development. Arbeo 17:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbeo, you're appearing stupidly ignorant to me in you ongoing attempts to descredit the root languages from which current Standard German has been created. Read the Article on the German language, it is an artificial language and thus should not have a Wikipedia would be as much an exaggeraton as your statements - only bending reality to the other end. However good, or complete, any Wikipedia will be, should not be anyones but the contributors business in the first place, and before not a comparable amount of labor has been invested, a 'comparison' to the German WP is impossible and pure perjudice. Your (presumably intentionally) false claim about all non-fictional text were in Standard German is ignoring the tiny bit of more than 1000 years of history before something like Standard was begun to be constructed, driven by political interest, and even evidently false thereafter. The Hanse, a multinational organization comparable to EFTA, EWG, or the current European Union (at least) in its early years, always had Low German, (Plattdüütsch) as their official language. The EU only recently embraced the baltic states and is slowly catching up somewhat to the former Hanse. Read the "German Dialect" section in the German Wikipedia Article on false friends - it lists a handful words that are different betwwen Standard German and some other German language, and at the same time prone to provoke misunderstandings since they're sounding similar to something else. These examples are not even the snowflake on the tip of the iceberg. For one German minority language alone, I could give you a list of several hundreds more 'false friend' words, leave alone the ones not bearing any similarities, leave alone the fact, that there are almost no identical words (sharing both meaning and pronounciation) leave alone quite remarkable differences of grammars. (Compare this to e.g. language pairs like Dutch/Afrikaans, Bokmâl/Nynorsk, Urdu/Hindi - all undoubtedly different languages recognized by international standards on the highest possible level of differentiation, ISO-369-1 - even though Hindi/Urdu are 100% mutually intellegible deviating in less than 2 dozen words) There is a motion of ultra right wing extremists that there should be ony one unified language with which all others must be brought in line (see also German Wikipedia on Luxembourgish, re dräimol Lëtzebuergesch, under Hitlers reign). Arbeo I offer you an examination to publicly prove your claim, that there were only some slight spelling deviations between the various Languages of Germany. Knowing of the huge set of 'false friend's at disposition, I know that you're bound to fail a test, if you're really as ignorant as you appear to be presenting youself here. If you take the challenge and do not fail, however, that would then clearly document that (a) vast differences in additon to spelling exist, and (b) make evident that you are very knowleadgeable about them and purpously misinforming readers here, likely following some hidden personal or politcal agenda. Interested? -- Purodha Blissenbach 16:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose NO NO NO! See Arbeo - what next Berlinerisch? Where is the end, if any minor dialect gets his won Wiki? Kenwilliams 20:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ken, have you ever heard of the slippery slope logical fallacy? This is it! "We can't admit variant X, that'll lead us to accept even smaller scale variant Y in the future". I recommend that you stay away as long as you do not show any knowledge of the linguistical landscape in Germany. The term "German" is very, very unlucky, since the variants spoken by people identifying as German are, however related, definitely not the same language. Saying that a Low Saxon or a Bavarian does not speak "German" as such (that means, either Standard German or another High Franconian dialect) does not mean he isn't German. Palatian is Middle Franconian, it has a different history and a different present state. Its speakers are Germans, their language may be German but it is a different language from the language of the Bundestag and the theatre. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 13:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kenwilliams, if any minor dialect gets his won Wiki? (as you write), this would (a) only be for those language variants having enough supporters who also take on themselves to make an own Wikipedia and thus do not already feel at home in an existing one, i.e. if there is demand, and (b) it was exactly what Wikimedia Foundation set out to do in their mission statement. (c) Who does not like the language might safely ignore it's Wikipedia, and (d) it enriches the world. -- Purodha Blissenbach 01:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose It's clearly a dialect, not a language. There's a definite dialect continuum and no "border" for Pfälzerisch. Plus, there's no standard orthography and not even a standardized "Hochpfälzerisch". Why didn't anyone suggest a Wikipedia in Sächsisch yet, or Erzgebirgisch? Or even better: Leipzigerisch (as the Sächsisch of Dresden and Leipzig is not the same). This request is quite silly in my opinion. If we had a Saxon Wikipedia, people from Dresden, Chemnitz and Leipzig would constantly edit between "ni", "net" and "nüsch". I imagine similar things for other dialects of German. —en:User:N-true 5:21, 15 April 2006
  7. Opppose. Spoken dialect only, no literary tradition. Wikipedia isn't Asterix. Angr 11:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose There cannot be a Wikipedia in every dialect! Dialects are different in villages with small distances. What is common between dialect in Kaiserslautern and Ludwigshafen for example? The only thing is that they are German dialects and write German standard. So both should use the German Wikipedia!
    Auf Deutsch: Man kann doch nicht für jeden Dialekt eine eigene Wikipedia aufmachen! Wir sollten lieber froh sein, dass es die deutsche Standard-Schriftsprache gibt, mit der wir uns alle problemlos verständigen können (auch in gesprochener Form) und nicht jeden regionalen Dialekt verschriftlichen wollen. Dies ging im Elsass schon daneben, mit dem Ergebnis, dass dort heute Französisch gesprochen wird! --Juhan 19:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    Juhan You are opposing something that noone asked for. Not a Wikipedia for every town, but one for all of the Palatinian language varieties is being requested. That is for about as many people as living in Norway, for example. You must imho either allow Palatinian terms and Palatinian writing in the German Wikipedia, if you want to invite Palatinians to participate, or you have to allow them to go on their own. Opposing both - as you do here, and the German Wikipedia does by disallowing dialect use and most dialect term - together builds up to a harrassment against the Palatinian language which demands that it must not be used by people to express themselves (in the Wikipedia context, that is) Palatinian is no doubt one of the root languages, that todays German developed from. Why are German people so fascistly against their own roots? It is clearly a fascist attitude, when one says: "So both should use the German Wikipedia!" since it is you trying to tell someone else what to do, taking away his/her freedom to make his or her own choices. How would you feel if someone came along to tell you, since you're capable of reading and writing English, you should use the English Wikipedia which is five times bigger, far more acurate, etc. and the German language Wikipedia were now unavailable to you? --Miss van der Roehe 14:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Per all that is said above, it is not good if we start admitting dialects Baristarim 05:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose No test wikipedia, another german language wikipedia -- Raghav 14:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Not a language, spoken dialect only. --Obersachse 21:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Oh no, please not another dialect Wikipedia! I know it is nice and funny to write some articles in your "mother tongue" but there are far to many dialects and the benefit for dialect Wikipedias is nearly zero. Moreover all these dialects are not standardized so edit wars are foreseeable because every user wants the article to be written in his village dialect. Of course, working on Wikipedia should be fun. But it should be serious, too. And not just kidding. -- 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:RokerHRO)[reply]


  1. Neutral - by the way, I oppose a Portuguese wikipedia. Portuguese is not a separate language. It's just a mispronouncing of a Spanish province. Stettlerj 22:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Get a life! You are opposing each language proposal! By teh way, the english you used to write this line is a mispronouncing of German and Latin, so stop talking it. -- 15:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You take me seriously! The January 11 comment was a sarcastic reply to a comment that was made opposing the Pfalzisch wikipedia. Since the comment has been removed from its original context and does no longer follow the comment it makes fun of, the comment makes little sense or no sense! I don't know who takes our comments and removes them from their contexts.Stettlerj 18:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (It was a reply to this Jan. 10th comment : Oppose - Pfälzisch is not a separate language, just a specific mispronouncing of a German province. Moreover, where should this trend to create new splitted WPs lead?[reply]
  2. Neutral, because I would like to get more information. But I've added the template above and the links to articles about the language, where there was only a poor paragraph to request. German users are the key for this request. I hope they will have some interest for it, and find enough native or advanced users to help it. :o) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. neutral' : I can not give an advice without anymore information, as Hégésippe explain it too. Grimlock 17:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]