- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
My proposal is based on my opinion that Prussian language is more widely used than in 2007, when it was proposed the first time. The language has been reconstructed enough in order to write articles in a proper way. Moreover, we have now our first native speaker. We have Prussian dictionary in 6 languages. What's more, we have an interface translated into prussian. It's even now able to use as one of interface's languages.--Piteris (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- As a proposer, I support the idea. The language is on better position than it was in 2007. We have more users and by now, we have done over 300 articles on our own project similar to Wiki. I could write the articles and I think there will be more people wanting to contribute. What's more, SIL International changed the status of the language. Now it's considered as the living one
--Piteris (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Bilāi tū Prūsiskai? πr2 (t • c) 18:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Akiwīstai, kāi as bilāi prūsiskai. As tērpaui šan billin eraīnan dēinan :)
Surely I speak Prussian. I use this language every day :)
--Piteris (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would probably support this, but I'm not sure it will be created. πr2 (t • c) 02:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, we have to try. If we don't get it right now, maybe in 2-3 years? Who knows.
--Piteris (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sure. Have you decided which reconstruction you're using? The one like Sudovian? πr2 (t • c) 23:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Most of us uses the dialect of Sambia, as it had the best documentation. It is likely to be influenced by Sudovians, because they were resettled in this area. Almost each of us uses this reconstruction carried out by Mažiulis and continued currently by Letas Palmaitis.--Piteris (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- As a language user I higly support this project and I'm ready also for editing prussian Wikipedia. I hope this time it'll be possible. Prussian isn't an affected language. For sure it isn't more (re)constructed as other baltic languages, which were strongly modified in 19. century. Lithuanian could be the best example. Prussian community has proved that they can create proper online-encyclopedia (vide: non-official prussian encyclopedia). More than 330 articles are ready right now. We can do it! :)
- The prussian Wikipedia started to work on an independent server: http://wikipedia.prusaspira.ez.lv after refusing it in the official Wikipedia. We have 6 authors who write articles more or less regulary. From the technical point of view it would be better to make the decision about wikipedia for our language using the material on this server, not to start an incubator, which can disappear and work of people can be wasted then.
I think, that sources of prussian in internet says enough about the vitality of language. It is used also during the traditional prussian holidays in songs (dainas) by people not using it in everyday practice.
- Support This language nowadays can be considered to be a revitalized language. There are some people who speak Prussian fluently and are able to write articles in this languages on different topics. Disadvantage of the independant server: wikipedia readers are not able to find out about the Prussian language because on Wikipedia there are no links to the Prussian version of the article.
- Support I'm glad to see progress is being made with the revival of this extinct language, and the external wiki looks impressive. Clearly this Wikipedia can become a success. And why not? If revived languages like Cornish and Manx can have their project, why not Prussian? IJzeren Jan (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Per comments above. I wonder whether or not LangCom would approve this, it's in a similar position to that of Manx, but Manx has 1,823 "competent" speakers, compared to the few here... still, this proposal has my support. πr2 (t • c) 04:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I encourage them to transfer articles from their own wiki if the license allows.--22.214.171.124 08:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Could someone shed more light on the current situation of actual speakers of the language? Are there native or near-native speakers nowadays again? --MF-W 06:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support Prussian is actively used on the Internet by at least a handful of near-native speakers. The external wiki is constantly growing and it should definitely merge with the future Prussian Wikipedia. --Iketsi (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support. A living language as stated by the SIL since 2009. Professorjohnas (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose: please provide a proof that creating this wiki will serve Wikipedia's goal by reaching at least one person who was unable to read it before in any of present languages. Max Semenik (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- According to this rule, Wikimedia should close dozens of language editions here.--126.96.36.199 13:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Support-MacRusgail (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Minor Support, as I found the contributor of the testing project it's now clearly that this language is re-borning. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Currently, it seems that @GerardM: doesn't agree the eligibility of Prussian because of his same reason that provided for Ancient Greek. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral It's not really a living language yet, but people are working on it, and it seems likely to have enough users to at least make a marginal Wikipedia. I'd like to see more than "The Little Prince" translated in it, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral. My first reaction was: "no no no!", since the language has been dead for centuries, the people who spoke it have become assimilated Germans and their descendants were expelled in 1945. In other words: solidly obliterated. But apparently the revival movement is serious. Whatever reason these people have to revive Old Prussian, the simple fact that they are doing it means that Prussian is again getting alive. On the other hand, it is far too early to declare this movement successful. They aren't anywhere near the level that the Cornish or Manx movements have reached. I'd rather wait and see how the test wiki develops. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 23:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment, Languages under revival efforts should be given chance to create their own wikipedia, with standard at least comparable to or easier than creation of wikipedia of artificial languages. C933103 (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- @C933103: Well, the project is started 6 years ago, but currently problem is that GerardM still hates languages that are judged as "historical", "ancient" and "extinct". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, the real problem is that the test wiki has few if any recent edits. If you want a Wikipedia, you must be willing to keep it alive - not just for three weeks. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 18:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure if a Modern Prussian language Wikipedia can simply be created using the prg code for the extinct Old Prussian language, since the reconstruction can't possibly be fully accurate, especially since Old Prussian unfortunately is not very well documented. This issue should probably be clarified before proceeding. Otherwise, I am very open to the revitalisation efforts and since there are native speakers of modern Prussian nowadays, I believe this language deserves a platform to share knowledge like Wikipedia. @Piteris: I assume the Modern Prussian you intend to use is documented here, is that correct? The documentation seems to confirm my doubts with regards to the language code, since it as well explicitly differentiates Old Prussian from the revitalised Modern Prussian. --Vogone (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- For now, the standards authority is willing to go that way, as they moved prg from "extinct" to "living". If SIL changes its mind and recodes, we will, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.