Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Palatinate German 2

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

Palatinate German Wikipedia

main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Palatinate German 2)
submitted verification final decision
Application-certificate.svg This proposal has been approved.
The Board of Trustees and language committee have deemed that there is sufficient grounds and community to create the new language project.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This wiki has been created at Jon Harald Søby 17:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

I suggest to reopen the already well discussed old request under the new rules. If I follow the flow of the river Rhine upstream, I see the Wikipediæ in the Dutch, Limburgish, Plattdüütsch, Ripuarian languages, a gap, and the Alsatian/Alemannic - imho the gap should be closed. Though related, neither the Lëtzebuergish, nor the Pennsylvania Deitsch Wikipediæ can host the Pfälzisch language. --Purodha Blissenbach 03:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Arguments in favour

  • is imho a language of its own with a distinct grammar, a long history of writers in this language and and it is used in everyday life by a few million people. Elvis untot 12:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I can just recall what I wrote in July concerning the old request:

    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.

    It could be a good source for training this german dialect Christos Vittoratos unsigned by 22:46, 31 December 2006.

    I would just like to quickly note that Czech & Slovak and Danish & Norwegian are most certainly not considered separate languages for merely political reasons, it is quite linguistically ignorant to claim so. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I do also support a pälzisch Wikipedia. I am from there and speak southern-pälzisch, so I could maybe contribute one article or the other. I never did this and this is actually the first time I write anything here, but I'm willig to learn. So there was the idea to start with a Incubator Wiki. Did anyone start this yet? I would take part. I guess I have to do some reading to find out... De Benny unsigned by 16:53, 10 January 2007.
  • support - if the diff between pfl and deu are bigger than between slovak and czech ... go for it! Tobias Conradi 22:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Since Wikipedia is a project for all, so it is interesting for anybody to know about the different types of german. It would be a little bit strange when other german forms can have an own Wikipedia, but palatinate german can not?!? Imho should every dialect in every language have an own wikipedia. That's interesting for everyone, who wants to know something about it. -- Greetings from Rhineland-Palatinate (Germany ;-) - Koxxer 09:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Just give it a chance! --Melancholie 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't see the reason why there shouldn't be a palatinatian wikipedia when even Plattdütsch has one. I have lived in areas where Plattdütsch is spoken and in areas where Pälzisch is spoken and I can assure everybody that Pälzisch is by far the more popular language/dialect as it is spoken even by teachers in school and by local politicians whereas most of the people, who are able to speak Plattdütsch don't even speak it at home. Most of the young people in the Pfalz still grow up with Pälzisch, they use it activelyand for their whole life, many of them are not even able to speak the standard german language properly whereas Plattdütsch is mostly spoken by old people, young people grow up with standard german, most of them don't even learn Plattdütsch at home. For all this reasons it would be unfair against the palatinatian people to forbid them to have their own wikipedia.
  • Support - Pfälzisch is a living language, but the future is unsecure. A Wiki in pfälzisch could preserve this part of the culture of Germany for future Generations. Claus Ableiter 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Even if most people would be better writing in German so what, personally I write better in English even though my first language is Spanish, this is because all my formal education has been in English, but that would be a truly lousy reason for not having a Spanish wikipedia, similarly even if the Palatinate speakers never went to school in their language and mostly speak it while writing in standard german shouldn't mean that they don't have the right to a wikipedia in the written form of their language, that has been developed even if overlooked. Bavarian and other german related language editions have not detracted from the Standard German wikipedia. this project is very important i think and is both a matter of fairness and policy, if it has an ISO code, if it is considered a language by a significant group of linguists, if it is living, if it has a standard written form, if it has people willing to contribute it should be given to go-ahead, thats policy... thats fairness.Qrc2006 18:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • strong support. Just because "this is going in a end in a lukewarm joke like the Bavarian edition" (User:Janneman) is the real joke. German language is not just Duden. There is pluricentrism and there are dialects and prejudices must not count. And it's just fair to give a Wikipedia to all big groups of dialects. Man77"..."(de) 17:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • support. The "most often used messages" have now been completely localized at Holder 16:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • support. Native Speaker of the Language. Will try to translate my de-articles to pälzisch. --Garnichtsoeinfach 10:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Arguments against

  • It may be too early to draw conclusions, however the pace of progress at Test project seems slow. Furthermore, what strikes me is that all the discussions are in standard German. If you look at the Ripuarian Wikipedia, the picture there is quite different. Everything there is in Ripuarian, from the main page, through the village pump to the admin elections. Here, a local language is actually a means of communication, at the pfl test project it seems to be restricted to the role of representation (of local identity etc). At the current stage, I would say, I'm not yet convinced. Therefore a mild "Oppose" for now. May be subject to change, if the project gains momentum. --Johannes Rohr 18:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • strong oppose - this is going in a end in a lukewarm joke like the Bavarian edition. As the discussions on the project page show, all of the prospective editors find it much easier to read and write in standard high German - as will their prospective readers. Call to mind that the aim of any and every Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia ("a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge"), not to provide a toy and medium for parochial pride. --Janneman 23:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Principal opposition to dialect wikis is not a valid argument, as projects in local languages/dialects are seen as legitimate per community consensus. Else, you could easily argue that there should not be an Upper Sorbian edition, as you can expect virtually every Sorb to be fluent in German. (Well, I concede that there is a difference. Upper Sorbian has a well-defined written standard and a long-standing literary tradition.) If there is a linguistic community that wishes to create their own Wikipedia edition, they have the full right to do so - as long as what they create is in line with Wikipedia's basic principles. So, again, this is not about the Bavarian Wikipedia-turned-Uncyclopedia but about a separate project proposal. The only valid criteria (apart from linguistic distinctiveness) is whether they succeed to general some real encyclopedic content, which they have so far failed to do. --Johannes Rohr 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Principal opposition to dialect wikis is just about the most valid argument I can think of, and I very much doubt that this point is uncontestable "community consenus" (as in policy) - as you can see, there are quite a few well-versed Wikipedians who disagree. And no, not any and every linguistic community has an automatic right to set up shop here. --Janneman 22:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Couldn't have said it better than Janneman. Another local-dialect-project will on the one hand only pull away editors from the "mainstream" high German Wikipedia, on the other hand it only serves the purpose of stroking said editors' ego rather than actually providing an useful and educational extension to Wikipedia. Lennert B 23:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Fear, that it might detract authors from the standard German edition is, I would say, not a valid argument. Quite the contrary: If serious authors would be attracted to this project, this would be a proof of its legitimacy. At the same time, I suppose that the dewiki has not much to be afraid of: It is the second largest edition and I haven't seen any indications so far, that migration of users to dialect wikis has had any detrimental impact on the level of activity. I would strongly insist that the only valid topic for discussion is, whether the proposed pflwiki has the capacity of evolving into a viable encyclopaedia. And I seriously doubt that this is the case. Up to now, the test project has failed to generate any serious content. However, alleged side effects on other wikis should not play a role in the decision process. --Johannes Rohr 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You have a rather disagreeable habit of declaring "invalid" every argument you don't agree with. --Janneman 14:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
he's not declaring it invalid, he is informing you that that argument is invalid per policy. he is not declaring it invalid for the reason you believe but due to the fact that the argument you are making has been proven wrong and precedent has established that it should be disregarded.Qrc2006 18:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Ack Johannes Rohr. If the discussions are in German, the people do not seem to be willing to write in the Palatinate language. Nevertheless, I would like to see projects in more varieties of German, but not this way. And I think the bad Bavarian example shows that there is always the danger of forking a kind of joke project, which should first be excluded. I would vote for support when the first 500 articles written in Palatinate language are on the test project, so that I see that the people are really willing to work. --Thogo (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • strong oppose - Pfälzisch is part of the German language. It is one of a number of spoken variants (commonly called "Dialekte") that make up the German language and that all share one common written form (to everybody's benefit) called "Hochdeutsch". Unlike Alemannisch or Bairisch, Palatinate German is even a Middle German dialect, i. e. it is part of the core of the German language and thus it can by no means be considered a distinct language. (Otherwise, Hessisch and Berlinerisch would probably come next) --ARBE0 16:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - I'm a Pfälzer and I love to speak pfälzisch(, I can't otherwise, I must admit). But first of all, there is no common pfälzisch. Every village has a differeent dialect. And the pfälzisch they speak in Kaiserslautern sounds like saarländisch to me.

Secondly written pfälzisch, if it is the pfälzisch you speak, is still very hard to read, it just has no written part, it's a spoken language. 3rd: What for? An encyclopedia is for information. Everybody in Germany understands (ok, I admit, should understand) high/standard (?) german.

  • Strong oppose - It's not a language. What's next? "Beamtendeutsch" and "I'm-so-cool-Jugendsprache"? -- 15:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose That is not even a language. And I doubt there is any potential for this wiki. —§ stay (sic)! 04:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, strong doubts about the viability of this project. No consistent written standard and no community push to establish this edition. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

General discussion

  • How a bout using the Incubator Wiki so as to make a beginning and demonstrate support for the project? --Purodha Blissenbach 04:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    Please go ahead an do so. This would be useful in order to clarify whether there is actually a generally recognized standard of Pfälzisch. BTW: Wouldn't the native name be Pälzisch (or even Pälsisch), rather than "Pfälzisch". The "pf" is a characteric feature of standard German (Hochdeutsch) and it is generally missing in Pfälzisch (just als in Kölsch. standard German "Pferd" -> Kölsch: Pääd)
    I would suggest that the community of prospective editors create at least some sample content before going public with this proposal. I know very little about the proposed language/dialect/whateveryoucallit. Therefore it may be due to my ignorance that, while could easily name a number of notable writers who expressed themselves in "Platt" (native language of Northern Germany), I cannot think of any literature/poetry in Pfälzisch. Consequently, "Platt" is a codified language, while I doubt that Pfälzisch is. This is not to rule out the creation of a wiki, if enough contributors turn up. But, as we know, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I.e.: I'd like to encourage you to provide some evidence that this is going to work and return to this proposal later. Aditionally, it would be helpful, if you could provide some evidence of written (and codified) Pfälzisch outside of Wikipedia. --Johannes Rohr 18:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    You are absolutely correct − they themselves call it Pälzisch
    You are wrong assuming that "Platt" were a codified language. There are more than 400 clearly distinct groups of dialects, according to scholars, in the Low German language group, collectively sometimes referred to as Plattdüütsch. Btw. likely the majority of the West Middle German varieties call themselves Platt, too (don't know about Palatinian), such as some 100 Ripuarian languages. Those that nowadays don't, did so earlier in history, e.g. Bönnsch and Kölsch are simply short for Bönnsch Platt, and Kölsch Platt. "Platt" translates to "plain", "simple", and almost all of these language or dialect names mean "the plain tongue of <place>" as opposed to Latin, German, French, (Nederlands) which is/was not a "plain language" of the simple folks but those of the priests, rulers, governors, foreigners.
    Believe me, there are quite many publications in Palatinian. They even have regular Palatinian writers/poets contests there, drawing a lot of public attention.
    I understand Palatinian to some extent, and if I can, I shall certainly support the test edition, but I cannot speak or write Palatinian good enough to be useful as a contributor of real content. unsigned by Purodha 16:38, 17 December 2006.

The statistic show that no start has been made for localising this language. For any first project in a language it is expected to at least localise the "most often used languages". Thanks, GerardM 19:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The "most often used messages" have now been completely localized at Holder 16:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Language or dialect

I've read statements here, calling Palatinate a "Language" in its own right, or even a "group of languages" (see test wiki). Maybe it doesn't really matter for the process of creation, but I find both statements somewhat exaggerated. In Germany, Pfälzisch is usually considered a family of dialects, not languages. As for me, I can easily read anything which is on the test wiki so far. It reads like standard German with a peculiar pronounciation. I don't see a distinct grammar, and not even a distinct vocabulary. Calling it a "Language" may be a matter of pride, but I don't think it is linguistically justified. --Johannes Rohr 22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Every dialect of a language or dialect group is a language. Contrary to some languages, a dialect is usually described by its relation to other languages of a family or group or (linguistic) neighborhood, while not all languages are usually decribed so. Also, dialect, and language, are political terms to some extent, not linguisitc ones. It was a political decision, to call the palatinian dialect spoken in Luxembourg a national language - linguistically, it is still a German dialect, and noone would name it otherwise, were Luxemburg a German federal state, as its two neighbors having almost identical languages are. Germans even call yiddish, and the two Sorbian languages being spoken in Germany dialects, for the two apparent political reasons of being defamatory and because all three languages are not related to an "own" state. Linguistically speaking of a "dialect" outside the context of an enveloping language or group is as useless as stating that each person is a child. I think, here is a place for linguistic approach, not political? --Purodha Blissenbach 19:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
My question is: Is it necessary to create a separate Wikipedia for Palatinate German? Would it be appropriate to allow Palatinate German on --Iamunknown 20:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it would not. --Johannes Rohr 08:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to save subdomains, so I cannot see what such an unworkable proposal would be good for. What I am concerned about is the impression that the whole idea of a Palatinate Wikipedia is yet another stillborn (brain)child. CatScan does not find any activity on the test project within the last 28 days, see [1]. For everyone who thinks, a Palatinate Wiki is necessary (of which I for one am not convinced) should spend their time adding content to the test project rather than participating in heated debates here. --Johannes Rohr 17:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Pälzisch" could not only be useful to people from Pfalz but also from neighbouring regions. There are speakers of similar dialects in the North West of Baden-Württemberg and in Saarland, Germany, in the North of Alsace and in Southeastern Moselle, both France. When Alsatians started the Alsatian Wikipedia - now being called the Alemanic - they had discussions about the sensibility of their project as part of them (North and Northwest) speaks a different dialect than the alemanic majority. In the End other Alemanics from Germany and Switzerland joined them (or took over...) and the Wiki was opened up for the whole family of dialects. Now in the French Wikipedia the Alemanic is presented as the sister-project in the regional language of Alsace. And for the frank speakers of Moselle (Lorraine) they link to the Luxembourgian Wikipedia. But this is only (linguistically) "accessible" for "Northern-Mosellanians". Northern Alsatians and Eastern Mosellanians - even if there may be (I admit) very few authors - could though very well integrate in the "Pfälzisch" project, if the "Pälzer" are willing to open up to the whole dialect-family!Stephele-- 15:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A "pan-Frankish" Approach?

I'm Bavarian; and as such I wonder why not all Franks who have no own version yet can work together. Bavarian isn't uniform either, let alone Alemannic. Hellsepp --Hellsepp 16:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

They could not. This is because of their diversity. The so called 'Frankonian' group encompasses a lot of mutually incomprehensible varieties. You probably know the (East) Frankonian spoken in the Southeast of the federal state of Bavaria. The people using it every day neither understand Palatinian, nor Kölsch, nor Krieewelsch, nor Dutch, nor Afrikaans, which are all in the Frankonian group. They even cannot tell or 'hear' any difference between all of them, except maybe, Palatinian. Putting these six languages into one wiki would be futile, because - without extra education - participants would simply not be able to communicate. --Purodha Blissenbach 09:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Localisation update

  • Currently the localisation at Betawiki is at 12.07% of the most used MediaWiki messages. GerardM 06:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Currently 12.22% of the most used MediaWiki messages have been localised. Please help us help your language by localising at Betawiki. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks, GerardM 08:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Currently 12.06% of the most used MediaWiki messages have been localised. Localisation of these messages is a requirement before your request is finally assessed. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks,
The "most often used messages" have now been completely localized at Holder 09:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


The language committee has approved the project. While waiting for formal approval by the Board, please complete this questionnaire:

  • Language name in native language: Pälzisch
  • Language site:
  • Logo (135x155px PNG image; a derivative from a decent SVG image): Wikipedia-logo-v2-pfl.png
  • Project name ("Wikipedia" in native language): Wikipedia
  • The name of the project namespace (usually the same as the previous): Wikipedia
  • The name of the project talk namespace (something like "Wikipedia talk" in your language): Wikipedia Diskussion
  • Default project timezone (something like: CET (UTC+1)): CET (UTC+1)

Thank you, SPQRobin (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Questionnaire completed. Holder 05:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I have submitted the site request on bugzilla (see bug 25871). Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)