Talk:Requests for new languages/Archives/2006-11

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in November 2006, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Cantonese, again

The request for Cantonese has a pretty clear majority (currently 17 pros vs. 3 cons) now. It would probably only be fair to move it to the "Approved" page now. However, since this is a very tricky issue I don't wanna act on my own authority without any consultation. Opinions? Objections? Approval?
Arbeo 18:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Be bold Arbeo. Let's just do it, and preferably now. Caesarion 20:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did vote con, so I should make an objection, but I think you have a pretty solid majority there. Jade Knight 08:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
support this suggestion.--Ffaarr 13:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank You for Zaza Language and Zaza Poeple. Thank you Wikipedia. Zazaländer from Zazaland

Slovene Wikibooks

I'm looking the right place to request a Slovene version of Wikibooks (right now we have some articles or part(s) of articles, that shouldn't be in wikipedia, but in wikibooks, but we don't have one). Can anyone direct me to a right place? TIA. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic 12:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Cebuano Wikitionary

Hello. It looks like the Cebuano Wikitionary has been approved. May I ask where it is located? Thanks.--Nino Gonzales 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the Point ?

What's the point of this site. The languages that eventually are approved don't get started anyway. The Pennsylvania German "Wikipedia" for example is now at over 1 000 pages and it only had about 500 when the request for a real Wikipedia was requested. What is up ? Stettlerj 00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, the developers don't seem to be paying us much heed. Jade Knight 23:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're not the only one standing in line. I guess many Wikipedians are a quite disappointed that currently no developers are willing to set up new wikis. Especially since we're supposed to be an "open project". Unfortunately, they are the only ones that can bring a Wikipedia to life. Many users (including myself) have tried to explain in a friendly and polite manner why setting up those new wikis is important for our project, with no success. Since begging and pleding doesn't get us any further - does anybody have an idea what else we could try? Arbeo 20:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I wonder what their reasons are. Is it because they don't have time? Or is it because they feel that there are too many wikis under 100 pages so they don't feel like setting up new ones? You know, perhaps a way to help some of those little wikis would be to transform some of them into language family wikis, for example maybe a Cree wiki does not work, and a Maliseet wiki won't work, and an Ojibwe wiki won't work by themselves, but perhaps together they could change a wiki like the Cree one into an "Algonquian Wiki", based on the way the Alemannic wiki works (some articles, or portions of articles in one language, others in another, with the language specified). Although the algonquian languages are not intercomprehensible, it would be a way to give these languages a wikipedia with more life ? If the tables were reversed and Romance languages had only a few thousands or hundreds of speakers each, one could definitly make a "Romance Wikipedia" with articles in Italian, Catalan, French, Romanian, etc. if these languages could not make it themselves. This would help fulfil wikipedia's original dream of being a free encyclopedia for all the world's languages Stettlerj 01:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, is something going to happen now?! I know several people who could make some propaganda for the Norman wikipedia but as long as there's only an inactive test-wiki it's a waste of time. --Clemens 04:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed—The Norman test-"ouitchi" did extraordinarily well at first, but after we broke 100 articles, we slowed majorly down because we're waiting for the official wiki (so as to try to keep things from getting unmanageable in the test stage). We actually are using a system somewhat similar to the one proposed above—articles are acceptable in continental Norman, Jèrriais, or Dgèrnésiais, though sometimes the differences between these dialects can be quite substantive. Jade Knight 22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since wait we must, we shall wait. But... can anyone give me hints as per translating the interface? Is it possible to find tech info to install a locale (my linux machine here) version of the wikipedia, on which to test the piedmontese user interface and the help files? I suppose this would definitely make a big difference. This way, once the developers find the time to create the instance, we will have a tested version to put on it. bertodsera 20:38, 25 March 2006 (GMT+2)

Update March 2006: Several Wikipedias have been created. A big Mèrcie bein des fais! to the Developpers who got this done! The Jade Knight 22:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Emiliano (eml)

Sorry if my nickname can't appear on the Web, but I write from an old computer that would crash if I put it on. Anyway I'm Utente:Selks. I strongly support the creation of a Wikipedia in Emilian language, as Caesarion above previously said. It's a matter of equity: we have a Lombard Wikipedia, a Venetian, a Ligurian, a Neapolitan and a Sicilian. Only Emilian is left and is also considered by Ethnologue a separate West-Romanic language. Why should we Emilians be left out of this project? As regards the varieties of its dialects, we could create some templates for each language variety, I believe this could be politically correct. I'd be one of the most prolific authors!! I'm a native speaker from Bologna.

This belongs on the page itself under "Emiliano". The discussion page her is more for "meta" purposes. Jade Knight 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What WTF is the sence of the vote counting???

Since some two days the are some users, who make a great afford and make a great work and fullfill the recent changes by counting the votes for support, for oppose and neutral. Why??? Some two hours later, when somebody new voted somewhere, it changes. See e.g. the section Requests for new languages#Brněnský hantec (1 support), where 1 support is a complete nonsence. I don't see any sence in this, in contrary. -jkb- 17:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

For me it looked also quite weird... It was counted by Trasianka editor: [1] Maybe all hantec section should be removed? D_T_G 22:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for criteria in granting requests for new languages

There should be some criteria to make out whether a request for a Wikipedia in a new language should be fulfilled or not. The reason for this is that the current support/oppose system does not work at all. Basically, all people maintain their own standards of what languages should get a Wikipedia and which shouldn't. Often people's claims contradict one another, not to speak about their philosophies about what (a) Wikipedia should be. That means that the approval of a request simply depends on what people happen to visit and edit the page. Definitely an undesirable situation. I therefore propose the following guidelines:

1. A living language with an official status

Such languages are often the ones most likely to maintain a flourishing Wikipedia, sooner or later. Morevover, they are usually standardised by a consensus that is widely accepted, which can avoid a lot of trouble on that Wikipedia. When three people, of which at least one is a native speaker, are found willing to work on the new Wikipedia, it should be created.

2. A living language without an official status (and which may sometimes be considered a dialect)

Many such languages lack Wikipedias. Usually there are less people who are able to write it (properly) and often the language has a lot of dialects and no proper standardisation. Moreover, most if not all people can read the bigger Wikipedias, so there is usually no direct need for them, though they certainly serve a speaker community, and sometimes quite a large one. In order to ensure succes, we should be a little more strict towards requests in such languages: the quorum should be five willing contributors, of which three are either native speakers or, when it concerns a request in an endangered language, people who resemble native speakers (who know the language from one parent, for example, or who don't speak it at home but use the language in everyday communiation with friends).
When a certain variant is to be considered a mere dialect, it does not qualify for a Wikipedia. In order to make out what is a dialect and what is a separate language: rely on ISO-639, but do so with sense. When a variety has an ISO 639-3 code but can easily be used on an existing Wikipedia, we should probably deny it (see for example the request for a Wikipedia in Stellingwervish). When a minority language that is often called a dialect but which has an ISO code has no Wikipedia where it can be written, grant the request, as long as it has five supporters (see above). Be very careful with varieties that lack ISO codes. It might be better to consider these just dialects, as a consensus over these matters is unlikely to be reached (see a.o. the recent Hantec request).

3. A dead language

Wikipedias in extinct languages generally do little to fulfil Wikipedia's main purpose to spread knowledge among all people. Potential contributors are not only able to read (Wikipedias in) other languages, but also use other languages in their daily communications. However, when people want to work on it and do so well, that's fine, but only as long as it benefits a community. There are generally two types of dead languages that qualify for Wikipedias. The first type is the classical language: A language like Latin, which was the means of communication for a major civilisation, left a lot of written records and continues to be present in the consciousness of modern people. The second type is the language that run extinct relatively recently, which still serves, or has begun to serve again, as a culture bearer for the people that once spoke it, and which is in a process of revival. Such a language is Cornish. The fact that both Latin and Cornish have flourishing Wikipedias proves that Wikipedias in dead languages are not necessarily moribund.
I propose the following guidelines: seven competent speakers willing to contribute for a classical language; eight willing contributors, of which five identify as members of the ethnic group that used to speak the language, for a recently extinct language. For nearly extinct languages like Livonian the same approach should be pursued. Notes: poorly attested ancient languages like Tocharian or Oscan do not qualify as classical languages. When a dead language is in such a stage of revival that it is once again serving as an everyday language, it should be treated like those languages as defined obove, under issue 2.

4. A constructed language

Esperanto was among the very first languages, after English, that gained their own Wikipedias. Wikipedias in constructed languages can therefore be sucessful. The Ido Wikipedia also does very well. Interlingua gets by as well. Other non-natural language Wikipedias however failed to really get started.
Many people distinguish International Auxiliary Languages and other constructed languages. That's logical, because IALs are designed for practical purposes and other conlangs usually just for fun or for artistic or philosophical goals, not for spreading information. Only two such Wikipedias were ever created; a Wikipedia in Toki Pona was eventually closed down and turned into a Wikicity, a Wikipedia in Klingon was eventually shut down - it failed to attract contributors. However, I suppose we treat future requests for IALs, fictional languages, logical languages and philosophical languages in the same (strict) way: the only IAL to have a sizeable speaker community is Esperanto, and it has had a Wikipedia for long. Any such request should be supported by fourteen people able and willing to contribute to this new Wikipedia. On top of that, the conlang should be notable: not a language someone invented on an idle afternoon and subsequently spread among his friends. It should, after all, benefit a serious community. Finally, when it concerns a fictional language, it should be well-attested enough, its grammar and much of its vocabulary should be known. For that reason, Tolkien's Elvish languages Quenya and Sindarin are unsuitable for a Wikipedia, however popular they are, as long as no more information on them is released by his heirs.

These are my proposals, I think they are well-considered and relatively clear (yes, I could be much clearer than this, but that wouldn't make my proposal sophisticated). I'd like to hear what you think about them. Btw my English is still pretty mediocre... feel free to correct any errors, as long as your changes don't affect my arguments. Thanks in advance! Caesarion 16:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


In my opinion there should be a committee which decides which new languages are accepted and which also has the capability to act upon that acceptation, that is it has the means to actually create the accepted wikipedia. If it goes by just voting it is not quite right, the way it stands now someone could make up a language and it may well finish with more supports than opposes. ... (by the way, if cornish wiki was a success why is the pdc wikipedia still not wanted at wikipedia.org?) Stettlerj 23:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, that committee could work along these or similar guidelines, I think... And when it comes to pdc.wikipedia... You're hitting the thumb on the head, it should (along with some other candidates) be created immediately. I've even contacted Jimbo about the subject, no reaction so far... Caesarion 09:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support changing rules to more clear :) And IMO the page of requests should more observed by admins (see that - is it fair?). D_T_G 20:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. There's not much value in creating so many Wikipedia's that don't attract any contributors. At the minimum there should be minimum standards like 20 contributors on the test wiki and 100 articles. Maybe those should be higher. With enough contributors and articles then the project is much more likely to be viable. - Taxman 21:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I support having such guidelines, but I think they should not be so strict—20 contributors on a test wiki is really quite a large amount and it's a pain to import over a hundred articles to a full Wikipedia (we're doing so now with the Norman wikipedia). I think that 50 articles on a test wikipedia is an adequate demonstration, as very few of them ever reach that size, and I don't think it should be limited by contributors, so long as you at least have native speakers, and more than 1 or 2 contributors. The Jade Knight 22:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, there should be a minimum number of willing contributors and a few dozen articles on a test-wiki. If someone is really willing to work on it, he will be able to find a few other people. Look at the Coptic request for instance, I'm not opposed to having a Wikipedia in Coptic but right now there is only one person who claims to speak it; none of the other people supporting it are speakers. --Clemens 03:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Piedmontese: request for assistance

Hi everyone, I suppose something went wrong with the request for a piedmontese wiki, possibly because of a shaky internet connection. Can't seem to understand what's wrong, can anyone have a look at it? It's at the bottom of the page. Thanks bertodsera

I solved the problem. It looks as if some spurious chars had been created during a connection fault, it's okay now :) bertodsera 23 March, 2006 1:00 (GMT+2)

Murcian: boldly removed

I removed the Murcian request from this page. It's been going on a long time and it's obvious that there's no consensus, and there's been no new developments in quite a while. The potent issue of voting irregularities has tainted that request anyway. I'm very amenable to someone re-proposing Murcian, but the process really needs to be re-started in this case. Tuf-Kat 19:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wise decision, as far as I'm concerned. I'm wondering if could do the same with the Andalusian request. It's been around for ages, too, same "voting irregularities" plus they're doing a Wikicities now. Arbeo 13:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I've moved Andalusian to Requests for new languages/and, and taken it off this page. I've also moved a few to the native speaker support subpage -- no sense clogging this page up when it's perfectly clear that we're just waiting for native speakers. I moved the Piacentino request because the Emilian one is approved and there's a clear consensus that we don't need both. I think we can consider Buryat effectively approved, we just need some finality and which code and what the scope is. I'm not sure about the Zazaki request -- the information presented seems fairly persuasive to me, and it looks like a lot of support even ignoring the obvious sockpuppets. It might be wise to let that request be restarted, though. Tuf-Kat 22:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved Trasianka request

It's been around for more than half a year now and is opposed by most people, so I moved it to Requests for new languages/Denied. - Arbeo 20:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I'll remove it. Let's discuss on it's page. 7/11 doesn't seem catastrofical. Propose to move it there, let's discuss. I'll try to find another interested in the project people. - Trasianka_editor 20:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I sure can understand that. But what would you suggest? It's a simple fact that a new Wikipedia cannot be created if most Wikipedians are against it. Your request was given very much time and did not manage to convince a majority of users that an online encyclopedia in Trasianka could work well. I certainly don't like to disappoint you, but I really can't see any other option at the moment. - Arbeo 20:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
There's not so much people against. The problem is the lack of supporters. I'll try to manage it. Trasianka_editor 22:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. Maybe will act like this: the Trasianka proposal removed to Requests for new languages/Denied, but there it will remain for some period of time, aproximately 2-3 monthes, and I'll try to find some more supporters for the project, and some more theoretical sources on the problem of Trasianka. Please, let it stay at least on Requests for new languages/Denied for some time. I hope, I'll be able to manage it. Trasianka_editor 12:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Surely, we'll keep it there. I for one don't have objections against resuming a discussion when there are significant new facts. Arbeo 17:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Opposing for native speakers

It occurs to me that under the de facto criteria for language requests, there's no point to opposing a request due to a lack of native speakers (since two native speakers are required beyond consensus here). It just clouds the issue on contentious requests, and doesn't help anyone. Tuf-Kat 20:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  • You're right. The problem, however, is that requesting a wiki for a new language without knowing that language or knowing a couple of people that do and are willing to contribute is almost as pointless. If it's a "proper" language, it will be approved in the long run and then end up on a growing list of Wikipedias that could be created in theory, if ... Not sure what to do about this - apart from encouraging people not to request Wikipedias for languages they don't speak. - Arbeo 20:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • True... It occurs to me that the current system is really a pretty bad way to go about deciding when to create Wikipedias in which languages. Really, there are two separate issues that we conflate here:
  1. Are there people willing to work on it?
  2. And then the eternal written standard/dialect-language-accent-slang/political creation debate...
    • It might be wise to separate these issues. The question of when to open a Wikipedia is not the same as the question of which Wikipedias to open. Why not make a list of pre-approved languages in advance? If native speakers of Cook Islands Maori or Aleutian or Tuvan show up, there's no reason to make them wait while we follow the formality of voting. Tuf-Kat 23:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

ottoman language

ottoman language is needed .Ottoman state was a Big state and big culture. I want to have a ottoman language wikipedia. help us. --3210 12:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Minangkabau Language Edition of Wikipedia

Can I propose a Minangkabau language edition for Wikipedia? This is because Minangkabau has a very rich histories and cultures, also, its an interesting language. And also Minangkabau has a large speakers of this language, the total speakers of Minangkabau is about 6,500,000. — Emrrans 11:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • If you speak Minangkabau, please go ahead and request it. --Chamdarae 14:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Oldest requests

The requests for Wu, Zealandic and Bavarian Wikipedias have all been around for more than half a year now. Maybe we can try and bring about decisions for those within the next, say, couple of weeks as keeping them on the Requests page for another few months probably won't lead to any major changes.

  • Wu: solid majority, launch of the Cantonese WP (as a precedent for other Sinitic languages) seems to have been successful, no test-wiki however but several users committed to contributing, can probably be moved to "approved" within the next few days if nobody objects, use Chinese script?
  • Zealandic: some more opposition, approving it would be somewhat consistent with Limburgish, West Flemish etc. though, small test-wiki exists
  • Bavarian: difficult - plenty of opposition, no test-wiki so far, name issue (how would one call that Wikipedia? Bairisch/Boarisch [only] probably wouldn't work for the Austrians, Boarisch-Österreichisch or anything like that would be quite clumsy plus linguistically incorrect) - any ideas? circular file?

I'm looking forward to hearing your views, comments, ideas regarding those requests and hope we can accomplish some progress here pretty soon. -- Arbeo 20:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest holding off on the Wu Wikipedia. The argument about Cantonese was awfully divisive, and it might be better to give that wiki some time to develop and see how it goes (I haven't heard anything bad about it, but then, my Cantonese is rusty, to say the least). I'm not sure about the other two, but I guess I lean towards approving them. Tuf-Kat 05:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Arbeo. Well, since the problem you raised here covers subject I'm highly obsessed and involved with (yes, I know my English is clumsy but I suppose you understand me) I feel bound to react ;-). We can consider Wu "approved" and have the developers create the Wikipedia. For Zeelandic, the opposition is quite narrow and indeed not in line with the usual policy. However, no native speaker has shown his interest so far. The Zeelandic test wiki contains one article by a native speaker (and it was contributed by an IP number, which is usually a good sign), but we should leave it on the requests page - I think I can retreive some native speaking willing contributors relatively easily, jsut give me some time. For Bavarian the opposite goes: it has plenty of approval (and denial, for that matter) from native speakers but none of them really felt bound (or knows how) to start a Test wikipedia. For Bavarian goes again that its approval would be perfectly in line with the previous approval of other non-standardised languages traditionally considered dialects. The dialectal and nomenclaturical problems are not unsurmountable: taking either the Munich ("Boarisch") or the Vienna ("Baarisch") dialect as standard is quite workable for all Bavarian dialects, compare similar circumstances for Limburgic with a much smaller speaker base and language area, or compare Alemannic with an even bigger variation, if only you allow everyone to write his own dialect and make some templates that indicate the dialect in which a page is written.
Btw the support/oppose vote system does not work at all, clearly it generates chaos. Everyone has his own ideas and philosophies of what Wikipedias should be created and which souldn't. Have you read my proposals for new criteria above? Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 15:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Steinbach btw: how neat you adopted a German name ;-)! Please pardon me for writing telegraphic style today. Wu: agree with you, however: nobody has so far formally indicated being a native speaker. As a matter of equal treatment, we'd better wait for that. Contacted the proposers about this issue today. As soon as we have two Ns I for one will be ready to move it (however, Tuf-Kat wants to wait a little longer). Zeelandic: would be great if you could find a couple of native speakers. Otherwise probably: Requests for new languages/Native speaker support. Bavarian: my concern was not so much the dialect issue (probably not unsurmountable, agree with you) but the naming issue. Would be great if the native speakers would take matters (name, dialect issues, test wiki) into their own hands. Maybe I can find one willing to assume responsibility and organize the whole thing (they're all de-Wikipedians), we'll see. Your suggstions: read them long ago, yes - sorry for not replying so far. I'm a little tired of those tedious fundamental discussions since the endless (and so far fruitless) talk on the 'Policy for New Languages'. Agree with most of what you're saying, of course. Yes, the procedure is chaotic for sure. But to a degree I've come to terms with it as these days the results tend to be better than the procedure itself. Regards, Arbeo 16:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-natural languages

Could we get them moved back into the main section? I've proposed an Ido Wikiquote and assumed that it would be an easy sell as there are already pages and pages of quotes in Ido. Problem is that nobody's paying attention and I suspect very few people even look at that page. Waiting for the first vote is really really boring. Mithridates 08:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Counting neutral votes

I would suggest not to include "neutrals" in the headline vote summaries anymore in the future, as they have no effect on the result and keeping track of the pros and cons is already quite painstaking. -- Arbeo 14:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Interwikis

Anybody have any thoughts on allowing wikis that mark pages in dialects to have separate interwikis? This might make noms like Zazaki less contentious, because Zazaki articles could be interwikied just like any other, so someone looking for a Zazaki page could find it easily. Does anyone know if this is technically feasible? Tuf-Kat 08:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Knowing far too little about the technical side, I can't figure out that could work. Very interesting idea, though. Maybe somebody more proficient than me can think of a way.

... Zazaki articles could be interwikied just like any other, so someone looking for a Zazaki page could find it easily. - Right. But is that really the way users look for articles (looking up something in a different language first, instead of going straight to the wiki that's supposed to contain the article in the language they need and searching there)? Arbeo 11:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the whole point of interwikis is to ensure that people can find the language article they want. Especially with the smaller languages, they might not know that there is such a source -- a Zazaki wikipedia with a couple hundred articles might be completely unknown to a Zazaki speaker who is probably able to read another language, and thus might stumble across the interwiki in that way. I've often wondered about the actual use of some of the more bizarre interwikis, though (how many Navajo speakers are browsing the Turkmen Wikipedia when they find an interwiki to their own language? I don't hesitate to speculate "very few".) Tuf-Kat 15:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Approving the Novial Wikipedia

There is a request for a Wikipedia in Novial on the subpage Requests for new languages/Non-natural. The request (posted in January) has yielded more than 80 % consent and there is small test Wikipedia. Today Nov ialiste (the proposer) informed me that there are "at least 2 other experienced Novialists" (other than him) [2] willing to participate - which would be the rough equivalent of having two native speakers in this case. Any objections against moving the request to "Approved"?

ARBE0 16:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been one of the contributors to the test Wikipedia, and would continue to contribute if it is approved. -- BRG 13:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I recently began contributing to this test Wikipedia, and I plan to continue regular contributions 2-4 times a month as my times permits. Novialist 18:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I find the argument that it is the last remaining constructed language with an ISO code pretty convincing. I think it can be considered approved now. Tuf-Kat 01:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Right. It falls into one category together with Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua etc., so it needs to be treated in an equal manner. Thanks for your comments! --ARBE0 14:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


Undo My Changes to the main article

Hi... i inserted the template for request of Kokborok language..but the page saved was very different from the previous revision of this article.... M browser is not permitting me to see the whole edit page, please revert my changes -- User:Bdebbarma

What to do with "Simple German"?

On the subpage Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Simple German there is an age-old request for a Wikipedia in "einfachem Deutsch". I'm not sure what we should do with that and would like to hear your opinions. On one hand, the proposal has been supported by a surprisingly high number of users. On the other, there are also quite a few opposers (too many to consider it approved). On one hand, there are too many supporters to move it to Requests for new languages/Denied just like that. On the other, the Community only very recently opted against a Simple Spanish Wikipedia for reasons that would also apply to Simple German (or any other "simple" edition). Plus I have this impression that a great number of Wikipedians these days generally doubt the usefulness of having further "simple" editions. I'd be happy if we could together find a good solution here. --ARBE0 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Aramaic/Syriac Wiktionary

I propose that the should be a new wiktionary intended for aramaic/syriac speakers. I propose that it be titled "syr.wiktionary.org". This would be a good resource for Chaldeans, Assyrians, Maronites, other Syriac speaking people. I do speak the language, know its spellings, and I wish to administate this webpage to prevent false definitions of words or mispelled words. I need to know how to establish this wiktionary and to change the fonts used within it. I am Makkow makkow (in wikipedia) and i would greatly appreciate the help. Thank you!

What about the Tarantinian Wikipedia?

I wish to know why the piedmontese wikipedia has been approved with 9 supports, while the tarantinian version is still in list (with the same number of supports!). We tried to contact the Ethnologue team, for having the chance to have an ISO code about the tarantinian language, but we didn't have still a contact with them. It's quite difficult. The others users from Taranto and me, are waiting for this approval to go on with our work (creating a wiktionary, a portal, and so on...). Now, I know it isn't impossible to crate a new wikipedia in a language without an ISO code, so, what are we wainting for? I think that we have the right to have a wikipedia in our language, even if Ethnologue won't give us an ISO code (the appraisals of Ethnologue are not completely exact, and many information on the Italian linguistic situation are wrong). Please, give us the possibility of starting a wikipedia in our mother tongue! Thank you so much. --Beren85 16:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing that helps a lot is a succesful test-wiki. Is there anything besides a Main Page for Tarantino? Tuf-Kat 20:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Old languages

I think that some of the ancient languages have sufficient consensus. Specifically, Old Norse, Classical Chinese and Old Church Slavonic all seem sufficiently supported. Any other thoughts? Tuf-Kat 20:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that Old Norse would be a great addition. Don't know much about the other two.--Tugazo 17:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
For what? Nobody will write there. In German we call such Projects "Karteileichen". They are dead from the beginning. Kenwilliams 01:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of the poll concerning the creation of an European Portuguese Wikipedia

Arguments pro

1)The current Portuguese Wikipedia does not please all users who speak Portuguese. Some users believe that there are simply too many incompatibilities between the written forms of Brazilian Portuguese and European Portuguese, which include ortography, some different vocabulary and expressions, and even clear differences in the way sentences are created. Those users reckon that these disrupt the good functioning of the Portuguese Wikipedia, and interfere with the quality of the articles when the two variants are used at the same time. Having the variants separated would be a sound solution.--Tugazo 20:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

2)Norwegian is divided into Bokmål and Nynorsk Wikipedias. The Portuguese language should be granted the same right and follow the same division system as the Norwegian.--Tugazo 20:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

3)Opponents advocate that the two Portuguese variants are very similar and mutually intelligible, thus not being reason enough for them to be split. However, Wikipedia is rich in languages that are extremely similar to each other and still got different Wikipedias (like Serbian, Croatian, Serbo-Croatian, Bosnian, etc. Wikipedias).--Tugazo 20:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Arguments against

Neutral

Opposition to the previous poll

Bringing here the material (shown below) that was deleted from the page by the user Tugazo.--Gaf.arq 22:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Gaf, you really are a lame player. This discussion is about the new poll, you should have not brought the opposing votes of the previous poll here, I already acknowledged that the latter did not succeed due to its flawed constitution which resulted in massive opposition. Anyway, your addition is free to stay, I'm against reverting wars. Besides, a few users (Loge, Nightstallion, Lusitana, Epinheiro, Steinbach and maybe MHV) took their time to write reasonable arguments, so it's good that their opinions may hereby be registered.--Tugazo 23:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Your guidelines are antidemocratic, therefore, they're not valid ones for starting a new Wikipedia. EVERY wikimedia user should be allowed to vote, just as the rules state. (Because of this, the below votes are legitimate, indeed)--Gaf.arq 00:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

They are not antidemocratic. The electorate is very well-defined, distinct and valid. Everyone from this electorate is able to cast their vote freely. It's perfectly democratical. There is no such rule on Meta stipulating that every single wikimedia voter must be allowed to vote.--Tugazo 00:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Tugazo, forget it. Never going to happen. The examples you give, are examples of Wikipedia at its worst, horrible mistakes made for historical reasons. The idea of allowing only some people to participate in a vote is preposterous. --Jimbo Wales 02:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I had information that you were not favorable to this project although I did not expect that you would actually call it quits so abruptly. I deeply regret the lack of discussion. But I shall respect your decision and withdraw the entire project, although I must say that I don't think I would completely agree with you in respect to those "horrible mistakes" (things do not appear to be working wrong for Norwegian). Neither I can agree that the establishment of a specific voting community was preposterous, it was only meant to get the exact opinion of those who would eventually use the new project. Nevertheless, whatever your reasons are, I trust your judgement. With the withdrawal of this project, I shall not continue to contribute for the Portuguese Wikipedia for I consider that the current situation there does not guarantee its quality. I shall henceforth restrict my work to other Wikimedia projects in English. Thank you.--Tugazo 02:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


#Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose EUROPEAN, BRAZILIAN AND AFRICAN PORTUGUESES ARE ONLY DIALECTS! THIS PROPOSE IS INSANE!!! 555 01:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose As lusophon sysop, I consider this proposal a nonsense idea. -- Schultz 01:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Oppose Uthopic proposal, in Portugal exist some dialects derived of the Standard Portuguese; also, the Timor-Leste, Angola or Cabo Verde Portuguese is some different from Standard Portuguese. --Taichi - (あ!) 02:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    the European Portuguese dialects existing in Portugal and elsewhere do not write any differently.--Tugazo 21:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose My opinion is the same as the ones above. Besides them, however, I'd like to remember that there are less differences between Brazillian Portuguese and European Portuguese than the ones between American and British English. There isn't even a "pte" code in ISO. There's only one portuguese. That's it. That survey never happened in pt.wiki.--Gaf.arq (N) 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    as it reads above, "pte" is a proposed code. it does not exist as of yet.
  4. I disagree. FML 02:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Luís Felipe Braga 02:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Poor argumentation. What about creating a North-american Wikipedia, an English Wikipedia, Canadian, Aussie, etc? --Alexhubner 02:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose We have that to join force, and not to separate. this is bad idea.! Crystal gnome2.png NiedsonComment.png blá04:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose To destroy Wikipédia Lusófona is Totally Unacceptable, both speak Portuguese. Vidente 05:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose I am an admin at Wiki.pt and I absolutely disagree. As far as I can tell most Wiki-pt users are comfortabe with the concept of having only one Wikipedia for all portuguese so-called dialects. This discussion has never even been considered in the Wiki-pt community (and, believe me, almost anything has). Loge 04:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC) (pt:User:Loge)
  10. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose. This idea is ridicule. The differences between the Brazilian Portuguese and the European Portuguese are small, lesser that between the American English and the British English. Mateus Hidalgo 05:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Oppose. Doesn't make sense to me. If we start this trend with this little difference, we'll have to create wikis for de-at and de-ch (no ß in Swiss German, for instance), and ... no, simply no. —Nightstallion (?) 05:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose We understand each other, we work good together, why make it a problem? Portuguese is what unites us, it's one language and i prefer to live with the little differences and learn with them, than to simply ignore them and separate forces. Lusitana 06:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC) (pt:user:Lusitana)
  13. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Leslie 09:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Cícero 11:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Oppose Same reasons as described above. Nonsense. Mschlindwein msg 11:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose I can't see the point of such a propose... The proponent definitely doesn't seem to keep up with Portuguese Wikipedia discussions... Arges 12:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose MHV 12:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC) The only word I can say is nonsense! It is awful! Wikipedia is the best way I ever have seen to cope with the interesting, fascinating and sometimes challenging differences. Our language is our home country, as Pessoa said. Despite of neither where we are from nor where we are now, we are people from the same land when we speak our beloved Portuguese.
  18. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Indech 13:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC) -- Xenophoby at its best!
  19. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose "Brazilian" and "European" Portuguese are the same language, with a common "Acordo ortográfico" (orthography agreement). It makes no sense to separate them in two versions. PatríciaR 14:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Dantadd 15:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC) - You're kidding!!!
  21. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Although sometimes problemas occur because of the slight differences between portuguese versions, I cannot accept the separation, we all speak Portuguese! Epinheiro 18:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Becar 18:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC) - Nope!
  23. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Angrense 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC) - Nope! Otherwise, I want an Azorean Portuguese version....
  24. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose --OS2Warp 01:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC) "Brazilian" and "European" Portuguese are the same language
  25. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose --Adailton 05:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC) There are only Portuguese language, last flower of lacio
  26. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose SallesNeto BR 12:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC) "THIS PROPOSE IS INSANE" (555) !!!
  27. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose I voiced opposition to the seperate Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia, and I renew that opposition to this proposal as well. This makes as much sense as starting a Texan Drawl Wikipedia. While I will admit there are some dialectical differences between the way that Europeans and South Americans speak Portuguese, the difference between UK and US English is much more pronounced. And yes, I speak both Portuguese and English fluently. --Roberth 14:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose, but not as strongly as the people above ;-). Just as the English Wikipedia has no serious trouble in admitting both American and British, Canadese, Australian and Indian English, there should be no trouble in the Portuguese Wikipedia with Brazilian and Portuguese Portuguese. By the way, your neighbours from es: seem to have no problems at all with combining European Spanish with several variants of Latin American Spanish! Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 14:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  29. Absolutely Ridiculous. It would be the same thing to divide UK-english from US-english. Anmd intolerance for other countries orthographic rules is Very Bad. Muriel, 134.93.181.159 15:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  30. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose - JP Watrin 18:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  31. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose - THIS PROPOSE IS INSANE!!!--João Carvalho 20:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  32. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose - Ikescs 21:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  33. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose - FlipDarius 01:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  34. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose - Marcelo 16:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  35. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose LeonardoGregianin 16:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Poll Withdrawn Permanently

The scheduled poll has been withdrawn. Its content on the main page prior to the withdrawal follows below for record.--Tugazo 17:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

European Portuguese Wikipedia (3 support, 36 oppose)

People interested [if native speaker, please mark (N)]:
  • Proposer's user account in Meta and other wikis: Tugazo (N)
  • User accounts of others who are willing to work on the proposed wiki:

Tugazo (N)

Language code (ISO 639): proposed: roa-pte
Proposed domain: pte.wikipedia.org
Relevant infos: The division of the Portuguese language in Wikipedia is highly controversial. The core of the issue is whether the Brazilian dialect of Portuguese should be together with the European Portuguese (also called "standard Portuguese"). The differences between European and Brazilian Portuguese are substancial, especially between their spoken forms. However, differences between their written forms also often occur, despite the fact that any speaker of any of the dialects can read the other one without any difficulty whatsoever. Nonetheless, a great number of speakers often feel annoyed with the differences, which abound in the spelling of countless words. Grammatical variances also occur, and there is an increasing number of words and expressions that are not present in both dialects.

There is an official position by all Portuguese-speaking countries that there is one sole Portuguese, which can be divided in dialects but not in new languages. However, the number of individual speakers who consider that there are two separate languages in Portuguese, and that the one-portuguese rethoric is merely a political one, is rapidly increasing. Defenders of the language split are often accused of xenophobia, linguistic nationalism or simple ignorance. But such accusations usually lack a rational discussion, perpetuating the issue. There is a gentlemen's agreement among Portuguese-speaking contributors to Wikipedia, which states that a speaker shall not change the dialect used in an article to their own. Because of this, most articles in the Portuguese Wikipedia are completely written either in Brazilian or in European Portuguese. This means that if an European Portuguese speaker needs to copy a part of an article written in Brazilian to e.g. add to a schoolwork, he or she will have to go through the whole material and "fix" the differences in order to have a text that conforms with European Portuguese. It often occurs articles that have been edited by speakers of both dialects, creating an odd mesh of Portuguese where one seems to find a different form of the language in each paragraph. Many speakers of Portuguese do not mind at all to have the two variants altogether. But a considerable number of speakers do mind, and it is on behalf of those that an European Portuguese Wikipedia should be created (as a Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia should come along, as well). As Wikipedia claims to be a project made by all and for all, the rights of the European Portuguese speakers should also be regarded. An European Portuguese Wikipedia would only ensure the uniformity and quality of the articles written in that form of Portuguese.--Tugazo 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Link to article(s) on the language in an existing Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Portuguese
  • Native name(s): Português
  • Approximate number of speakers: more than 20 million.
  • Location(s) spoken: Portugal, Old World ex-colonies of Portugal, worldwide by Portuguese immigrants.
  • Closely related languages, if any: Brazilian (if considered a separate language), Galician, Mirandese, Spanish.

Announcement

This poll has been withdrawn by its proposer. At the time of the withdrawal, 2 users supported the initiative, 1 supported partially, and 36 opposed it (one of these votes was not valid for Meta). The proposer recognizes the rejection of the proposal through the withdrawn poll. But the proposer also recognizes a major flaw in the constitution of the poll, specifically the lack of guidelines to ensure a fair poll directed to those who it concerns. Therefore a new poll was scheduled to the 1st of August of 2006. The new poll will ask "Regardless of whether you consider Brazilian Portuguese a dialect of Portuguese or a separate language, do you support the creation of a new Wikipedia where the European Portuguese, of which you are a native speaker, shall be exclusively used?".--Tugazo 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I welcome all users to post their oppinions on the discussion area of this content page. A new section there has been created for the effect. That shall prevent this page from getting any more cluttered.--Tugazo 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines for the new poll

Independent mediation for the vote/voting process are needed and much welcome. Some primary guidelines for the vote are as follows:

1)The vote is directed to speakers of the European Portuguese, regardless of whether they consider Brazilian a dialect of Portuguese or a separate language. Only speakers of European Portuguese are entitled to vote. The voting shall not be fully recognized if this guideline is not satisfied.
2)Speakers of Brazilian Portuguese are not to cast a vote. They may, however, state their opinion in a separate section of the poll.
3)Speakers of other languages are not to cast a vote. They may, however, state their opinion in a separate section of the poll.
4)The purpose of the vote is to create a new Wikipedia which utilizes European Portuguese only. This project is not meant to disrupt the existing main Portuguese Wikipedia, and neither it presumes any association with the latter. Therefore, all discussion concerning it is to be carried on here on Meta.

Unfinished guidelines:

-The vote will have a date on which it shall be concluded. The concluding date has not been determined yet.
-A request for establishing a new European Portuguese Wikipedia shall be promptly sent to a developer after the vote, if: 1)A number of voters approves the creation of it. (the threshold has not been determined as of yet); 2)A number of editors confirm that they are willing to work on the new project and contribute to its expansion (the number of such editors required has not been determined as of yet).
-A new ISO 639 code will be requested upon approval, or a temporary code shall be implemented.

Thank you.--Tugazo 14:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

forms *Excuse me but: Who the Hell are you to start this? You have less than 50 contributions in the wiki-pt. You didnt even discussed this in wiki-pt. "Only european speakers are allowed to vote"??? "A new voting is hereby scheduled to begin on the 1st of August, 2006" Just because you didnt like the result? You have no moral authority to even start this discussion. Muriel Gottrop, 134.93.181.159 15:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Tugazo, you forgot one rule: only votes for the creation of the new WP are allowed... ;o) --Mschlindwein msg 16:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Tugazo, since you are the Leviathan I'd like to ask you: I'm a Portuguese citizen but I speak Brazilian Portuguese. Can I vote? and My neighbour is a Brazilian citizen but she speaks European Portuguese, can she vote? --Dantadd 18:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm also on the same status ;). I'm a Portuguese citzen, live in Brazil and I speak both variants (cause they are not dialects and neither different languages). Should I vote? Tugazo, don't you see your vote propose is senseless?--Gaf.arq 18:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The guidelines are clear in respect to this. If the voting is to be fair and productive, only European Portuguese speakers are to vote. Brazilian citizens who speak/write European Portuguese are welcome to vote. Portuguese citizens who do not speak/write European Portuguese should not vote. The issue is linguistic, not nationalistic.--Tugazo 19:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
While linguistic, EVERYBODY can vote, cause EVERY Portuguese speaker is able on writing ANY variant. Those guidelines are senseless and show subtile xenophobic attitude.--Gaf.arq 19:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Tugazo, are you really aware of the Meta procedures on starting a new Wikipedia??? Your vote propose is just senseless. EVERY wikimedia user has rights to vote AND to cast their opinion. Therefore, a European Portuguese WP is subject to all of Portuguese speakers vote on, not only to the European ones. And, again, you showed no respect to the Lusophonous Community at WP:PT, starting a poll here without calling for a debate there. You was BLOCKED at WP:PT because of your aggression on us. You ARE NOT able to start a new vote after this one with only your own rules. Try to show RESPECT on the community.--Gaf.arq 18:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I was perfectly clear with the guidelines. As for my blocking at wp.pt, carried on by you on your first occasion, I inform that I ceased any kind of participation at it. Wp.pt is neither free nor fair.--Tugazo 18:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
You are showing no respect for Portuguese Wikipedia again. The blocking was fair, since you called us "idiots". You were trying to turn things unfair since you started a poll here without call for a debate there. Regarding those guidelines exposed by you: they are clear, but they are not democratic. Those guidelines are related with no convention in Meta.--Gaf.arq 19:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I called you "idiots" after you called me ignorant. But that's okay, although it was clear that my purpose was not to insult, at least I got proven of how oppressive wp.pt can be. I would much appreciate if you avoid continuing with the lack of respect argument. I'm a Wikipedia editor who currently does not recognize the Portuguese Wikipedia as the place where I can work using the Portuguese language. Therefore I have no concern whatsoever for its positions, and I don't owe wp.pt any justification for my initiatives. Right now, I'm only concerned with the speakers of European Portuguese. Please realize this.--Tugazo 20:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The above statements show how senseless are your points. Showing no respect for all of the Portuguese speakers who edit Wikipedia makes clear that you are not aware of the whole history of this Community. PT.WP is, indeed, the legitimate place for all Portuguese speakers, don't matter if you recognize it or not. PS: I read the discussion at PT.WP again and see no agression on you. Nobody there has never called you "ignorant".--Gaf.arq 20:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The word "ignorant" was not used. But still, I was grossly called ignorant. And you know that.
I have lots of respect for those who do their work at the Portuguese Wikipedia. I wish them all the best.--Tugazo 21:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the discussion about this initiative should occur at the discussion page, to prevent this article from getting too cluttered.--Tugazo 20:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny, if you don't care about what a whole community believes, why should anyone care about what you belive, 'purist'? Indech 22:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not purist, I strongly support diversity. You're mixing things. A basic human right is to disagree, even if that means disagreeing with a whole community. And yes, people are free to care and not to care. It's up to each one to decide what to care and what not to care about.--Tugazo 22:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Tugazo, you broken a rule; please read Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Is ridiculous anulate this votation, you don't have the power for decide the votes. So, the proposals for dead languages are impossible because no native speakers, your rule is null. Please restore the votation or you will be blocked for sabotage. --Taichi - (あ!) 04:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Taichi, I have not broken any rule whatsoever, I took the time reading all the procedures. Wikipedia is not being disrupted and this iniative has a discussion area here on Meta, the best place for it to occur. Meta does not stipulate that a proposer of a vote may not withdraw it in order to formulate better conditions for it to be carried on, so the withdrawal was not ridicule. The previous vote cannot be reinstated for it was neither free nor fair, and it did not even fulfill all of Meta's criteria, so it was null right from the beginning. I can't see your point with the dead languages. There's no sabotage whatsoever. You cannot block me for sabotage unless you can clearly prove where's the sabotage. As an experienced Wikipedian, you know that sysops exist to harmonize Wikipedia, not to abuse of their power against other users. Scaremongering for no good reason is also sad, especially coming from a sysop.--Tugazo 16:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

To que question: Regardless of whether you consider Brazilian Portuguese a dialect of Portuguese or a separate language, do you support the creation of a new Wikipedia where the European Portuguese, of which you are a native speaker, shall be exclusively used? My answer, as a native speaker of the so called European Portuguese, is NO. Lusitana 06:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's very good that you are willing to voice your position. Please join the poll in August in order to cast your vote.--Tugazo 16:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Being a Portuguese is not a requirement for participating in the poll. The well-defined electorate is composed of all European Portuguese speakers, regardless of their nationality.--Tugazo 16:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In anothers words, you're a xenophobic against african, asian and american peoples. LOL, this may be explain your "european portuguese" proposal... \o/ 555 17:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
For the nth time, I am not xenophobic and I'm totally against xenophobia. "European Portuguese" is just a name that was given to the form of Portuguese spoken in Portugal. It wasn't me who invented that name. "European Portuguese" is also known as "Standard Portuguese", "Continental Portuguese", etc. I think that you are mixing two immensely different concepts here on purpose to deliberately try to make me look like something I'm not. Not good politics.--Tugazo 17:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • World have five continents and you are limiting your vote to one. If this isn't a mascared xenophobic action, I'm a crazy monkey \o/ 555 17:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
What's the part of ""European Portuguese" is just a name that was given to the form of Portuguese spoken in Portugal" that you did not exactly understand?--Tugazo 17:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I only made a joke with you proposal, your impose and creation of guidelines to voting cannot is a serious subject... but, what's the part of the Europe ins't the only continent in the world that you did not exactly understad? 555 17:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
In the day I develop a really poor and basic sense of humor I'll make sure I'll laugh at your joke.--Tugazo 17:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I born in Coimbra, Portugal. My parents are lusitanos and all we live in Brazil actually. I respect both countries and tell "brazilian portuguese DO NOT exist, what exist is PORTUGUESE with accent", in other words, brazilian portuguese ISN'T dialect. Do you know what a dialect mean? Portuguese from Brazil and from Portugal is equal. Separate portuguese languages by country, nation or accent, and so on, is wrong because simply is only one, it is unique idiom. I'm opposite, my poll is a NOT. (User Token) Brtoken 21:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been in linguistics, I know the meaning of the word "dialect", thank you. Please vote for the poll once it starts. However, since you do not recognize the difference between Brazilian Portuguese and European Portuguese, your vote can hardly be considered valid, for the question makes a reference to the European Portuguese speakers as the electorate.--Tugazo 21:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, if I follow your thinking, so is portuguese a dialect from Latim?. You can read in portuguese what means here [(português)] Dialects are not acknowledged like literary language ; the people of variety language haven't a self-governing state or sovereignty ; The idiom lack of prestige. (Neither Portugal nor Brazil are included in this terms). So Brazil nor Portugal aren't dialects, right? We're only one language; Your request will be refused. Thanks (PT User: Token) Brtoken 21:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Portuguese is not a dialect of Latin, which is a dead language as you know. All languages in this planet are constantly diverging from each other. Sometimes, two languages diverge so much that they stop being mutally intelligible. When that happens, it's clear that we are facing two separate languages. However, languages that are diverging but are still mutually intelligible are sometimes hard to define as either a dialect or a new language. There is no specific convention about when does a dialect start being a language. Political factors strongly influence the stance of the speakers of a language towards its dialects and towards other languages. Sometimes, countries that share a language that is mutually intelligible among themselves will claim them as separate languages so to have a national language distinct of their territory (see Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian). This dialect issue is quite complex. But very interesting though. I don't know why did you direct me to the article dialeto, for the information there clearly states that Brazilian and Portuguese are separate dialects, thus going against your position. Thank you.--Tugazo 22:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Only European Portuguese?? And Affrican Portuguese? Asian Portuguese (East Timor)? (PT User: Token) Brtoken 22:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
There are indeed other dialects of Portuguese, spoken in Africa, East Timor, etc., but as far as I know, all these other dialects follow virtually the same writing patterns as European Portuguese. Brazilian is the only one where the differences are extremely visible. All African and Asian speakers of Portuguese are due to be considered as European Portuguese speakers and may participate in this poll, for Wikipedia is a written archive and the variant used amongst these dialects you mentioned for writing is the same. It's good you brought this up. --Tugazo 22:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
You're really an ignorant, dialects is a variety of a language used by people from a particular geographic area, in other words, is a REGIONAL variety from a nation's language. [Dialect (english)] or [Dialect (in portuguese)]. The language from Brazil IS NOT a dialect I already said why... abbreviating because brazilian portuguese is national language and all national language aren't a dialect. Which are european countries speak portuguese? Only one, just Portugal and you're being xenophobic. (PT User: Token) Brtoken 23:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Dang, I can't really waste all my time here with this kind of responses. I'm not a primary school teacher.--Tugazo 23:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


This is absolutely rediculous to restart a poll that obviously has overwhelming opposition. I also strongly disagree with the sentiment that only people from one particular country can vote for the creation of a Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project. That is not trying to come to a concensus, but telling the rest of the Wikimedia community to take a hike and ignoring any other input. We have a community here that includes people who speak many different languages and live on many different continents. Why don't you restart the proposal as Portuguese with a Norte Americano dielect next? --Roberth 23:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You are misinformed. Please take some time in reading all the information relevant to this poll, especially its section on the discussion page. This poll is not meant for only a single country to vote, but for those who speak/write a specific variant of a language, wherever on Earth they might be.--Tugazo 00:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


May I ask a stupid question??? Who will assess whether one is a European native speaker or not? You, Tugazo? In this case, how do you intend to do that? Which criteria are allowed to use? Are you sure that you can do this without any trace of xenophobism? Are you sure that you alone have the authority to define a complex subject like this? Do you already have planned your assessment form? I believe you need to be very clever to creat something to accurately assess which dialect I can speak/write! Please, don't put yourself in such ridiculous position! Can't you see you that your idea has no echo around here? Don't make yourself a fool. Be wise and forget all this. MHV 14:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If people like Tugazo were simply banned we wouldnt have to come here and discuss nonsence, losing time. ---pt:User:PedroPVZ 23:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Estonian

I request a Estonian wikipedia!

It already exists. Have a look.--Tugazo 00:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Language code suggestion for Classical Wikis

hi all, is anyone have a good suggestion for the language code in Classical Chinese? After we know the suggested language code, we can hav a test page which is in th incubator, thank you.(zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/其他#文言維基測試) --Shinjiman 08:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting observation

I got it in my head to see what the largest language without a Wikipedia was, based on en:List of languages by number of native speakers. The answer is apparently Berber, a currently requested language. The Top Ten are:

Tuf-Kat 03:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ometo has an article now. Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 09:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Incubator Wiki

Could someone please enter the Incubator Wiki into the process here, because it is now the prefered way to start a Wikimedia project. Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 11:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I support moving the RfNL page itself along with new project proposals into the Incubator and having the pages linked from Meta. This way, Incubator would be involved in the proccess; it would also improve people's awareness about that project. — Timichal • 12:10, 17. Jul 2006


"Present Belarusian" & "Belarusian, orthography revision of 1959"

Hi, i wondered if these two requests could be added to each other to make one? They have common goal - to give an official language of Belarus a different wikipedia from this s.c. "tarashkyevitsa". The votes of two requests could be shared, as many people do not want to vote again bcos they have already. Thanks forward!

And the 2nd question is how many votes for support should there be for vote to get passed? Thanks - A. Yurkevich 10:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think, you can do all this yourself, and if nobody will oppose, it will be consensus. --213.210.116.57 12:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Totals counting in section names - PLEASE STOP IT!!!!

Please DO NOT add string like ("support 9, oppose 7") to proposals section names. This brokes all links to this section (there're usually many external links at another Wikipedias closely connected to new language). Edward Chernenko 12:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Bel-Wiki under the pressure

Hello! The question is: what can the Bel-Wiki supporters do with the "band" of opposers that came to the voting page and began to oppose our request without even a simple explanation "why they voted so"? Can we strike out that "votes" (coordinated in Bel LiveJournal by slaver_be, vovansystems, tokivytoki etc.)? This people at most haven't contributed to any of Wiki Projects... Can we take off that "unexplained" opposes? Thanks for answers!

Moved from /Denied

Hello. Can I ask, why is Europanto DENIED, when it has 7 votes support and 5 votes oppose? Thank you. --195.47.4.49 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC); UP3

  • Ahoj UP3! Generally requests for wikis in new languages need 75% pros for being considered as approved by the community. The request did not manage to yield such level of support during a long period of time. What's more, in the case of Europanto a number of users altogether questioned the feasibility of a Wikipedia in that idiom - as Europanto isn't really a language in the strict sense of the word but rather a random hodgepodge of different tongues. --ARBE0 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How can I vote?

I would like to support the Palatian wikipedia, yet I don't know how. Could anyone help me? Thnaks. --Llionés 16:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

When will we get our Kabyle wiki?

see [3] what do we have to do next?