Requests for new languages/Wikivoyage Gulf Pidgin Arabic

submitted	verification	final decision

	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). Obtain an ISO 639 code 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.
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	pidg1248 (SIL, Glottolog)	A valid ISO 639-1 or 639-3 language code, like "fr", "de", "nso", ...
Language name	Gulf Pidgin Arabic	Language name in English
Language name	خليج عربى پيدچن	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	Q107647440 - item has currently the following values: English label: Gulf Pidgin Arabic native label (P1705): instance of (P31)/subclass of (P279): pidgin / Pidgin Arabic Wikimedia language code (P424): writing system (P282): number of speakers, writers, or signers (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.
Directionality	RTL	Is the language written from left to right (LTR) or from right to left (RTL)?
Links		Links to previous requests, or references to external websites or documents.
Site URL	pidg1248.wikivoyage.org	langcode.wikiproject.org

Settings
Project name	ويكى_سفر	"Wikivoyage" in your language
Project namespace	ويكى_سفر	usually the same as the project name
Project talk namespace	كلام_ويكى_سفر	"Wikivoyage 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:Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-fa.svg	This needs to be an SVG image (instructions for logo creation).
Default project timezone	Asia/Dubai	"Continent/City", e.g. "Europe/Brussels" or "America/Mexico City" (see list of valid timezones)
Additional namespaces	"Phrasebook"="كتاب_كلام","Portal"="باب", "Portal_talk"="كلام_باب"	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.

proposal

It is a pidgin that Gulf Arabs and Jordanian communities use with South Asian speakers. Gulf Pidgin Arabic (GPA) speakers form the largest expat group in Arabia, with over 24 million speakers residing in the region. It is one of the largest spoken primary lingua franca pidgins in the world. It deserves its very own Wikivoyage like its sister Arabic slang wiki project. Gulf Pidgin Arabic has its own Glottolog code "pidg1248". — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Almajidy (talk)

هادا عربى خليجى پيدچين، نفر خليجى و اردنى يستخدم مع نفر ساوث ايشا عشان كلام سهل. متكلمين خليج عربى پيدچين هم أكبر گروپ اجنبى فى الخليج، فوق 24 مليون نفر عايش هنا. هادا اكبر لغه پيدچين فى دنيا لى نفر يستخدم كل يوم مثل لغه مشتركه اساسى. لازم عنده ويكى سفر بروحه، مثل مشروع ويكي حق عربى عاميه (مصرى،ماغريبي). خليج عربى پيدچين عنده بعد گلوتولوگ كود حق هوا: “pidg1248”. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Almajidy (talk)

Support

Support ~2026-26991-34 (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in to your account to be able to vote. -- Aws^{💬 Talk} 13:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support~2026-27323-21 (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in to your account to be able to vote. -- Aws^{💬 Talk} 13:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Almajidy (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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]
Hello, on what basis did you assume that I was mocking Arabic dialects? Almajidy (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it is a language with no native speakers. ~2026-27221-45 (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am a native speaker. Almajidy (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Wikimedia is not the place for such experiments. Perhaps it would be better to do this, for example, on Miraheze. --Flamme-Bleue (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Flamme-Bleue,

This is not an experiment. This is a real language proposal for Gulf Arabic Pidgin. Gulf Pidgin Arabic has its own Glottolog code "pidg1248". It is an active language with a large number of speakers, larger than many languages. Why do other dialects get a Wiki project while Gulf Pidgin Arabic does not? ماجدى【كلام】 12:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Gulf Arabic Pidgin doesn't have a literary standard. Therefore, your project will be creating one. Without one, one user will write one way, and another another way. If users reach a consensus, a standard for this language will be created. How many original words does this language have? How will you coin new words for this language? Therefore, this is an experiment. Other dialects, as I understand it, are more or less standardized. --Flamme-Bleue (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say that Egyptian and Moroccan Wikipedia are experimental? They have neither a literary standard nor original dictionary words. GPA has unique grammar that these dialects don’t. ماجدى【كلام】 12:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they are somewhat experimental, but these dialects have their own artistic expressions, and this is what drives them toward achieving a standard. Gulf Arabic Pidgin is still poorly studied. It doesn't even have an ISO code. Your attacks on other dialects are inappropriate, since the Standardization Committee has decided to assign them their own codes. But it would be interesting to see some specific examples. However, there's no point in doing so now, since the project won't be created without a language code. --Flamme-Bleue (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your attacks on Gulf Pidgin Arabic are inappropriate. Gulf Pidgin Arabic has its own grammar and artistic expressions. Dialectal Arabic wording comes from Modern Standard Arabic and other languages originally. Gulf Pidgin Arabic is heavily studied, even more than other Arabic dialects that have ISO codes. We have an unneeded Simple English wiki project and other dialectal Arabic projects where speakers of these “languages” can understand English and Arabic, while Gulf Pidgin Arabic speakers cannot. This wiki project is not experimental; it has its own logo, community, and language with its own Glottolog code "pidg1248". I myself am a speaker of the Hayari Arabic dialect, which has no recognition (I don’t consider my dialect good for a wiki project). A rejection of Gulf Pidgin Arabic is a rejection of considering all Arabic dialects as languages. ماجدى【كلام】 13:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attacking Gulf Arabic Pidgin, but I think it's too early to create a wiki on it. Perhaps I'm missing something, and you could provide links to extensive research literature on this language, as well as a dictionary. I found that this language is poorly studied compared to other dialects, that it exists exclusively in oral form, hasn't yet stabilized, and that the grammar and phonetics of the language vary greatly depending on who exactly speaks it. You link to a simple English Wikipedia, but that was before the current rules requiring a language to have an ISO code were adopted. That's why I advise you to create a wiki on free hosting. P.S. I didn't see the project's logo or community, nor the ISO (not Glottolog) code that's required here.--Flamme-Bleue (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for participating in this proposal. You can see the project logo and community in the proposal table. Even poorly studied dialects haven't yet stabilized, and the grammar and phonetics of the language vary greatly depending on who speaks it. I think Meta should support Glottolog codes too. If you are catering for a simple English audience, you should cater for the Gulf Pidgin Arabic audience. It's that simple. I request that the Meta community make a decision to support actual languages rather than dialects. Almajidy【Talk】 17:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the logo of the Persian Wikipedia, created in 2014. I also didn't see any community, if by that we mean a group of people willing to contribute to this project. If you want Meta to support Glottologist codes too, that's not the place to do it. This proposal will be rejected. It would be better to create a wiki on free hosting. Moreover, you haven't provided any evidence that this language should be preferred over Egyptian or Moroccan (for example, articles, books, online communities in this language). How is Wikimedia supposed to understand the value of this language if it doesn't have an ISO code? --Flamme-Bleue (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: Wikimedia doesn't use Glottolog codes. Secondly, the form of your argument is wrong. If we say that X are cats, and therefore they get a Wikipedia, and you think X are dogs, it's no good proposing Y, which we agree is a dog, and asking why, given that we accepted X, we do not accept Y. That argument won't convince anyone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because in this case X (dialectal Arabic slang) and Y (Gulf pidgin Arabic language) are not the same. He never said they are the same. He said that X (dialectal Arabic) is Arabic, which already has Wiki projects and a functioning Wikivoyage in the incubator. However, Y has no wiki project, and that sucks because it has been around for centuries, has its own grammar and speakers. X is X, Y isn’t. X and Y are different languages. ~2026-32006-40 (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Translated into Gulf pidgin Arabic:” يمكن فى هادا حاله اكس و واى مافى سيم سيم . هوا ما يقول ان هم سيم سيم. هو يقول إن خليج پيدچين عربى، وعربى عنده ويكى پروچكت وعنده ويكى سفر شغّال فى انكيوباتور. لكن واى ما عنده اى ويكى پروچكت، وهادا شى مافى زين لان له اكتر من ميه سنه موجود، وعنده نزام خاص و نفر كلام . اكس هوا اكس، واى مو اكس. اكس و واى لغتين مافى سيم سيم“) ~2026-32006-40 (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

X and Y aren't the same. I never said they were. The point is, arguing about X isn't convincing anyone about Y, and the form of the argument itself is just bad.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – ignoring the fact that Gulf Pidgin Arabic has no native speakers, it also serves no practical purpose to host a Wikivoyage edition in Gulf Pidgin Arabic. Most speakers of the language will already be able to read Wikivoyage in another language version (though I guess arwikivoyage has yet to become a thing), versions that will be able to keep travel content far more useful and up to date than whatever Wikivoyage Gulf Pidgin Arabic can do. //shb (t • c) 12:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @shb,

Thanks for sharing your feedback. I think a rejection for Gulf Pidgin Arabic should be a rejection for Egyptian, Moroccan, and other Arabic dialects pretending to be languages. Gulf Pidgin Arabic has unique grammar and the dialects don’t have unique features to be considered a “language.” Furthermore, most speakers of dialectal Arabic will already be able to read the Wiki project in the Arabic version, which is not the case for Gulf Pidgin Arabic, who does not understand the Arabic language clearly.

Note:Arabic Wikivoyage is open in the incubator. See here. It’s growing rapidly in content. If you’re interested, please support it in this page. ماجدى【كلام】 12:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As for arwikivoyage, already gave my support 5 years ago. :)

Regarding the other dialects, I'd agree, mainly on principle that in most Arabic-speaking countries where regional dialects prevail (particularly in Africa), English or French are used enough to the extent where it makes little practical sense to maintain a completely separate language edition, at least not separate from arwikivoyage. //shb (t • c) 13:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting Arabic Wikivoyage, and we hope one day for its migration from the incubator to its native website ar.wikivoyage.com asap.

Gulf Pidgin Arabic is not like other Arabic dialects which are pretending to be languages (no offense to any dialect), which have no unique grammar, and whose speakers speak Standard Arabic. The average Gulf Pidgin speaker (usually from South Asia) doesn’t understand Standard Arabic.

People who demand a dialectal Arabic Wikipedia just want a Wikipedia with their own rules. I want to tell these people: “why Arabic is not the next Serbo-Croatian” and “why doesn’t a Gulf Pidgin Arabic wiki project exist?” ماجدى【كلام】 17:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but most South Asians can already speak English to a reasonable degree. As much as it sucks to hear, a Gulf Pidgin Arabic will never be able to sustain the resources and means to remain useful for the purpose of being a travel guide. //shb (t • c) 11:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many South Asians don’t speak English. If we apply your logic, we should not have many languages and Arabic dialectal wiki projects!!! Arabic dialectal wiki projects such as (arzwiki, arywiki) will never be able to sustain the resources and means to remain useful as travel guides. ~2026-32006-40 (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then this isn't an honest request. The other languages are eligible in part because they have ISO 639-3 codes. If you really want this, get an ISO 639-3 code.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What is closest language with an ISO 639-3 code that is mutually intelligible with Gulf Pidgin Arabic? I think mutual intelligibility is the key, and if there is one we should focus efforts there. If not, we need to apply for an ISO 639-3 code. Regardless, thanks so much for the efforts and wishing you best of luck with this initiative. CC: @A455bcd9 @FunLater (Update: Unfortunately, there are some signs that the proposer could be trying to make a point with this proposal, and they are not genuinely interested in the project. If that is the case, this kind of behavior is generally considered disruptive.) TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing about Gulf Pidgin Arabic: it’s not mutually intelligible with any language. It has its own grammar, vocabulary, and Glottolog code "pidg1248". It’s not like other dialects of Arabic.

(Updated: I think @TheJoyfulTentmaker is not understanding the proposal. I’m interested in making a Gulf Pidgin Arabic version for Wikivoyage, and if I am “proving a point,” it would not be considered “disruptive.” Also, as I said to @Flamme-Bleue, this isn’t experimental. It already has a community and its own logo (check the proposal table) and targets a specific community of readers. This is not some “I want a wiki project with my own rules” proposal.) ماجدى【كلام】 13:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since this proposal is turning into “is Gulf Pidgin Arabic a language or just an Arabic dialect” should we start a discussion about this topic ?

(CC:@أوس, علاء, مصعب, أبو هشام, فيصل, Random Wikimedian, Fluxqi, أبو الشاي حليب, Epic-Firey-BFDI, Mr. Ibrahem, Mohammed Qays, Fenikals, حبيشان, Mdktb, Osps7, براء, عمر, أحمد الياباني, Freedom's Falcon, أمين, and أسامةالفاروسي:) ~2026-32006-40 (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
لا توجد هكذا لغة، فهذه لهجة ليست لها قواعد ولا ضوابط وهي لغة تواصل من أجل العمل ولا توجد لغة أو لهجة بهذا الإسم ضمن لهجات العربية، ويبقى التواصل الحقيقي وفق اللغة الفصحى وهي العربية. مع التحية Mohammed Qays (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
خليج عربى پيدچين عشان يسوى خدمه حق عمال من ساوث ايشا فى بلاد خليجى (ساودى،ايمارات عربى متحده،كاتر،بوهرين،كوڤيت،اومان،اردن) وحق اللى ما فى معلوم كيف كلام عربى . ~2026-32574-36 (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe in that dichotomy. My real concerns have to deal with pidgins in general and the nature of this one in particular. How cohesive is this group; if you sample the language of a group of native Filipino speakers in 2013 would it look entirely different from the language of a group of native Hindi speakers in 2023? That's why I want to see an ISO 639-3 code; because then professional linguists have looked at it and said it's a language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But linguistic associations have been researching Gulf Pidgin Arabic for decades. They have also granted Gulf Pidgin Arabic its very own code “pidg1248” (not ISO but it is recognized as a language after all). Also, many other dialects that have an ISO code aren’t considered culturally as a distinct language, like Serbo-Croatian dialects and dialectal Arabic for instance. Gulf Pidgin Arabic is not. ~2026-32574-36 (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We want an ISO 639-3 code, not a Glottolog code. Glottolog codes exist in part because ISO 639-3 codes are more careful about covering only languages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because Gulf Pidgin Arabic does not meet the basic requirements for a Wikimedia project, as it lacks an ISO 639-3 code, which is required. The absence of any standardized written form would also result in inconsistent and conflicting content across the project. If the genuine goal is to serve migrant workers in the Gulf, existing Wikimedia projects in their native languages such as Hindi, Urdu, Filipino, and others would be far more practical and useful.--Faisal ^talk 14:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the concern about missing ISO code, and that can be obtained if we write a proposal to ISO, or the delegated linguistic authority. However proposing them to be served by "existing Wikimedia projects in their native languages such as Hindi, Urdu, Filipino" is not a policy-based argument. (There is no existing project for the Gulf Pidgin Arabic speakers to collaborate, i.e work together on a Wiki project, and if they choose to, they should be given the chance consume and contribute to information in this particular language.) TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia is a community driven project. if the community agrees to support Gulf Pidgin Arabic recognition then they can grant us the chance to consume and contribute to information in this particular language. ~2026-32574-36 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just like simple English wiki projects it’s up to the community after all. And there are supporters for this Wikivoyage edition. ~2026-32574-36 (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no language by that name, nor does it have any grammatical rules. It is simply an attempt by Asian expatriates to speak Arabic in a broken form. It has no grammar, no linguistic foundations, and it does not even have an ISO language code. Mishary94 (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the proposer is from one of the six Gulf countries, I have serious doubts about the intentions behind this proposal. As someone from the Gulf myself, I know that this variety is generally used for humor, mockery, or ridicule rather than as a genuine means of communication. This naturally raises the question: what encyclopedic purpose does this proposal actually serve?

I have tried to assume good faith and look for a rationale that would benefit the encyclopedia, but I have found little evidence that it would contribute meaningfully to Wikimedia's mission. In fact, many of the people who speak in this manner are not proficient readers or writers of Arabic in the first place. If the goal is truly to serve its speakers, how are they expected to contribute to or maintain an encyclopedia written in such a variety?

In my view, this is not a serious encyclopedic proposal. With all due respect to its author, implementing it would significantly damage Wikipedia's credibility and reputation across the Gulf region. It would make the project appear closer to a source of jokes or entertainment than a serious reference work. Encyclopedic content should be written in a stable language with recognized grammatical standards and established linguistic foundations, not in a hybrid speech form that lacks formal rules, academic recognition, or even an ISO language code. Mishary94 (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better to evaluate a proposal regardless of the proposer's intentions. Meta language proposals can stay open for years, and someone with a genuine interest may join the discussion at some point. Most of the 350+ language editions of Wikimedia projects are low-resource, low-social-prestige languages as you described, but that is not a problem. It appears that a significant number of people are using the Gulf Pidgin for their work and life related communication in daily life, so in my opinion, it may be plausible to have a meaningful Wikivoyage in it at some point. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also for those interested, we have a Wikipedia edition based on Nigerian Pidgin English (sample articles: pcm:English langwej, pcm:Ejipt, pcm:Atom, pcm:Sola system, pcm:Climate change in Zambia). Though, I understand that pcm may be in a better situation compared to pidg1248, being a creole and having its ISO 639-3 code. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not attacking pcm, but it’s more like slang, not a creole. It doesn’t have a unique grammar structure like pidg1248. Its structure is Indo-European and the vocabulary is Semitic, which PCM isn’t. It doesn’t come close to being a dialect similar to Singlish. Also, pcm is in a better situation ISO-wise compared to pidg1248. We need ISO recognition, but there’s potential for this project. ~2026-32574-36 (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t wiki projects have a lot of unstable languages stereotyped as created as jokes, regardless of whether they were or not? Let’s stick to the Arab world as an example. Dialectal Arabic (which has a couple of editions in Wikimedia) is considered silly for academic purposes and like a filler wiki project in the Arab world. But if we consider all languages and dialects as stereotypically academically acceptable, I don’t see that as a reason to hate on Gulf Pidgin Arabic.

Also, I have checked the proposer’s user page and he’s from the Arabian Gulf and contributes to Arabic Wikivoyage, so maybe he’s serious. ~2026-32574-36 (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone above mentioned that there was a lot of research on Gulf Pidgin Arabic, so I went to look what I could find. A lot of it is behind paywalls, but https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a423/33bf074edccd03f267b7cac62d4630013c22.pdf says "It is clear that the core vocabulary of Asian Arabic pidgin is very small. It doesn’t exceed 200 words." and talks about how only 25% of the speakers in Kuwait had worked in Saudi Arabia. As a pidgin, I'd be surprised if that was enough to keep continuity between the language in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357578671_Degemination_in_Emirati_Pidgin_Arabic_A_Sociolinguistic_Perspective says "In another study, Avram (2012) explored the functions of fi ‘at, exist’ in four Arabic lexified pidgins, i.e., Saudi Pidgin Arabic, Pidgin Madam (spoken in Lebanon by Sri Lankan housekeeping female workers), Omani Pidgin Arabic, and Qatari Pidgin Arabic." and "Bizri (2014) explains that it is still unknown as to why Asian expatriates who work under similar conditions in the Gulf countries apparently develop dissimilar pidgins, e.g., Saudi Pidgin Arabic, Emirati Pidgin Arabic, and Omani Pidgin Arabic among others." It doesn't look like we're talking about one language here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Prosfilaes, فيصل and Mishary94, assuming good faith in the proposer. كريم أحمد (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These are Gulf Arabic pidgin dialects, and some of these do have unique codes and studies. Gulf Pidgin is similar to Arabic which has dialects; however, just like dialectal Arabic, dialectal Gulf Pidgin Arabic doesn't qualify to be its own language. ~2026-32574-36 (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose لأنها لهجة وليست لغة. أبو هشام (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

هجينة الخليج هي لغة مستقلة لها قواعد نحوية غير مرتبطة باللغات السامية أصلاً، وهي مختلفة عن لهجات العربية (كالمغربية والمصرية)، ولديها لهجات مثل البنغو-الأدرنية والإماراتية والمسقطية والدوحية (قطر) والسعودية والكويتية والبحرينية والسنهال-لبنانية. ~2026-32574-36 (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(TRANSLATED IN GULF PIDGIN ARABIC: خليج عربى پيدچين هوا لغه روحه فيه نيزام خاص مافى ارتباط بگروب لغه سامى، وهوا ما فى سيم سيم لهجات عربى (سيم سيم مغربى ومصرى)، وخليج عربى پيدچين فيه لهجات سيم سيم بنغالى-اردنى وايماراتى ومسكاتى وكتارى وساودى وكويتى وباهرينى وسنهالى-لبنانى. ~2026-32574-36 (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]