Talk:Requests for new languages/Archives/2007-02

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


I created this page in order separate new languages that can be considered "to-be-created" from those that are still discussed. Thus the "requests for new languages" page can be disburdened a little and developers can clearly see which wikis are awaiting their creation. (see also: Proposed policy for wikis in new languages and [1]) Arbeo 11:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

A good and noble initiative, but developers seem to have other things to do these days... :( Caesarion Velim, non opto 10:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Fully agree with Caesarion. Great work, Arbeo! I think there are other requests that are *close* to meeting the requirements, and it would be good if we tried to move some of them here. Some of them need more discussion, but I think the following are the closest:
  • Banyumasan-West Javanese: very large test-wp, but some outstanding issues that need to be dealt with
  • Lombard: maybe meets the requirements already
  • Murcian: lots of supporters, no opposition, but some unresolved issues (language or dialect?)
  • "Dutch Low Saxon": some unresolved disputes (though everyone agrees that there should be wikipedias in these languages), and are there any native speakers?
  • Bavarian & Ripuarian: the debate rages on...
Especially where there is already a substantial test-wp, I think the question is how, not if, they should be accepted. Feel free to add your voice to any of these issues, if you haven't already done so. I hope we have some new wikis soon. :-) --Chamdarae 17:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Caesarion, you were a little to pessimistic and luckily this initiative wasn't in vein ;-) Thanks to Ashar's helpfulness and Tim's support there are now three new members to the Wikipedia family. The next step would now indeed be to make some of the promising requests (like the ones you're mentioning above, Chamdarae) fit for creation. This subject was already brought up yesterday at the wikipedia-l mailing list by Servien. I'd be happy if we (the both of you, Servien, I and anybody else interested) could be collaborating on this matter in the next weeks to see which other new wikis can be launched. Arbeo 11:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Samogitian and Murcian meet the requirements. Kinaray-a does only if you interpret "official language of a real country" to apply to languages official in only part of a country. Ripuarian has lots of support, though no consensus. Tuf-Kat 23:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I moved Samogitian and Murcian here. I also tweaked the proposed codes for both, since we can't use unofficial ISO codes. I think a reasonable fallback is to use the "other" code for the family with an identifying two or three letters (gem-smg and roa-mu, respectively). Tuf-Kat 20:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
That's great! The correct code for Samogitian would be "bat-smg" - it's correct on the request form. I think Kinaray-a doesn't count as a "official language of a real country", and needs more native speaker support. I think Ripuarian has enough of a consensus - there are only two opponents (who are not Ripuarian speakers), and strong support, as well as a test-wiki. There's certainly a higher degree of consensus here than with Bavarian or Cantonese. --Chamdarae 04:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Good work, guys! At first I was a little unsure about those two requests because of the "dialect (or, precisely, 'transitional variety' in the case of Murcian) or language" issue. But now I really believe they can both be considered 'regional languages' and the support is quite impressive. Arbeo 08:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I moved Ripuarian over... There seems to be quite a clear consensus there. And that looks like just about all the proposals that are ready for now. --Chamdarae 19:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and finalized the codes for the newly-added languages. Since non-ISO codes are deprecated, would anybody mind if the standard was just to always use the applicable "other" code with some other reasonable three letter code? nds-nl for Dutch Low Saxon is a special case (as are the Chinese languages), but as a general rule it seems appropriate. I think requests oughtn't be added here without a definite code proposal. Tuf-Kat 06:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that it should be mentioned in the policy - codes & orthography to be used need to be agreed before a wikipedia can be approved. --Chamdarae 16:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

about zh-yue

How about cantonese? according to Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Chinese languages there are 11 wikipedians interested in joining in (not icludinguser:Thiefrayuser:Ffootballchuuser:Samhau who recently have made contributions to the Test-WP/zh-yue), and oppossions are only one or two.

The recent talk about Proposal for Sinitic linguistic policy is now 44 to 14.More than 70% approve it, and some of the opposing reasons contradict with each other( for example some said that "existing Contonese wikis are difficult to understand "",but others said that the writenn forms of Cantonese is similar to Chinese.} Besides,zh-yue have a good test-wp Test-WP/zh-yue with about twenty articles.--Ffaarr 03:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC) I think going ahead with Cantonese as a test case would be appropriate. Tuf-Kat 06:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This is still very controversial and opposition really is significant in this case. Nevertheless, you can't discuss and vote forever and some type of decision has to be made now. My suggestion here would be similar to Tuf-Kat's: let's set up a Cantonese wiki now and see how it develops, what problems might arise etc. If all goes well, we can think about Wu sometime next year and maybe about more Sinitic idioms in the further future. If Cantonese is not successful or any major problems do arise, no additional Sinitic wikis will be created. Arbeo 07:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately it has been made to seem a lot more controversial than it should have been. It does seem to meet all the requirements, and 76% support is a reasonable majority. If we follow the proposed policy (in any form that it has been written) I think we have to create a Cantonese wiki. The only alternative would be to have yet another vote. --Chamdarae 16:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It is time to move and approve the Cantonese request here with 13 interested to join. Is it simply copying the request here and waiting for developer to create it? HenryLi 10:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

code for Ripuarian

A final remark on Ripuarian (I still don't think it's a good plan but I will always accept clear majorities, of course): I think the code should rather be "gem-rip" instead of "gem-ksh". The letters "ksh" only represent Kölsch, the city dialect of Cologne. However, it has been agreed upon that the whole group of Ripuarian dialects should be included. I really don't know why SIL has chosen ksh ... Arbeo 07:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I've switched it to rip. Tuf-Kat 16:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
A code request is out to ISO, proposition: grp (Germanic Ripuarian). It may take several months to get processed. Meanwhile, we could:
  1. wait,
  2. 'pre-fetch' grp
  3. decide to stick with ksh which later should become a redirect. That is quite reasonable, since ksh is a subset of the new lang group code.
  4. go ahead with something else, such as gem-rip, x-grp, etc.
I suggest ksh with later redirect. --Purodha Blissenbach 21:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Dutch Low Saxon

No one has indicated that they are a native use of Dutch Low Saxon, so I don't know that it should have been moved here. I understand that it's a spelling issue and not a spoken issue exactly, but is there anybody that writes in this manner natively willing to work on it? Tuf-Kat 00:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Servien is a native speaker, and he has (N) by his name on the request. But he's the only native speaker listed. And since Low Saxon is recognised as a regional language, not a nationwide official language, it would need two native speakers to support it. (But since someone changed the policy a few days ago anyway, it doesn't make any difference - according to the current version all languages need two native speakers.) Anyway, you're right, it possibly shouldn't've been moved here yet. --Chamdarae 01:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, there's the fact that there is currently no total agreement on the issue of dialects -- namely, Low Saxon being divided North-South rather than East-West, commonality of speakers regarding the "dialects" they speak as different languages ("grunnegers sproak" rather than "grunnegers streektersproak" or "grunnegers dialekt"). I think that no Wikipedia should be created for Dutch Low Saxon, or any of its dialects, until there is input from more native speakers: the one is not enough. --Node ue 04:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I was the misdemeanant who moved that request ;-) It's a somewhat special case as we're not really discussing a new Wikipedia language here. There is a Wikipedia for Low Saxon already (nds) but that one uses a German-based orthography and many borrowings from Standard German. The Low Saxon dialects of the Netherlands however are written in a Dutch-like way and feature a high number of loanwords imported from Standard Dutch.
As far as I remember most of the "others who are willing to work on the proposed wiki" come from the area where the language is spoken and have a high level of proficiency. Nevertheless, I should have mentioned those facts when I was moving the request. Anyway, if we all agree here that the request needs two native speakers then it has to wait until they've found another one. Arbeo 19:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, there are also outstanding issues, which prevent it from being moved. --Node ue 01:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this proposal could be considered accepted at least until there are two people who indicate they write in this manner natively and are willing to work on such a Wikipedia. WRT to whether or not there is consensus, I must say I simply don't understand the issues here. I'm not a linguist, but my understanding is:
  • There is a grouping of dialects called Low Saxon, spoken in Netherlands and Germany
  • These dialects are quite distinct at opposite ends, but there exist many transitional varieties.
  • There is currently a Wikipedia with the code nds which ostensibly applies to the full range of these dialects.
  • The nds wikipedia only accomodates various methods of writing based on the dialects used in Germany.
  • The Dutch Low Saxon proposal is to accomodate the various methods of writing based on the dialects used in the Netherlands.
Am I misunderstanding something? Is there a standard method of writing Low Saxon in the Netherlands distinct from how it is written in Germany? Are there methods of writing the individual dialects of Low Saxon in the Netherlands (or in Germany?)? I guess I'm just confused... If there's a method used by real people to communicate in writing in contexts not related to Wikipedia or to proving its possible to do so, I support a Wikipedia using that method. I would not support nds-nl if there is no method used to write in that manner. Tuf-Kat 02:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Tufkat, in the Netherlands, people write in their individual dialect and many consider it as a separate language: Grunnegers, Veluws, Stellingwerfs. However, there is NO unified form of Low Saxon in the Netherlands. The Test-WP is written in Veluws. If Servien wants to create a Veluws Wikipedia, I'm fine with that.
Linguistically, the Low Saxon dialects are divided from NORTH to SOUTH rather than East to West. Servien wants to divide the Wikipedias east-to-west, based on national borders rather than real linguistic divisions. -- 01:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Is the same true of Germany? (i.e. is there a standard method of writing for all German Low Saxon dialects?) If not, how does nds handle that now? Tuf-Kat 03:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Tufkat, it's basically the opposite in Germany. In Germany, most people who know any Low Saxon dialect (with the exception of Westphalian and Eastphalian, which are completely unintelligible), read and write LS in something near the Hamburg dialect, considered something of a standard in Germany. In the Netherlands, many speakers of LS varieties say they speak different languages ("Grunnegers sproak", meaning Gronings' language, is used as the name rather than Grunnegers streektersproak, meaning Gronings' dialect); this is mostly not true in Germany, where most all speakers of Low Saxon call it Plattduutsch or sometimes Nedersaksisch/Nedersassisch, rather than saying "Oh I speak Hamburgish" or "Oh I speak Schleswigian". --Node ue 01:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Please be fair to our fellow editors!

After a longer period of total stagnation, we have been able to welcome four new members to the Wikipedia family and a workable policy for new languages seems to be within reach now. This was only possible because everybody cooperated here in a constructive and friendly manner. I tried to contribute a little were I could and I guess we can all be a little proud of what we have achieved by collaborating.

But sadly there is also something I'm really starting to be ashamed of. And that is the way we're treating our fellow users here who applied for their own Wikipedia four months (!) ago. Everybody is entitled to have their own opinions, of course and every opinion is heard and considered. But once everything has been discussed thoroughly, all necessary requirements have been met and a very clear majority has emerged it is everybody's duty to respect that majority decision and not to block it's implementation in an unfair manner.

Now for your two questions, Tuf-Kat. The issue is a bit tricky, of course, but you've gotten the basic facts right. With regard to spelling: it is not as strictly regulated as in German or English. However, there are established standards in Germany as well as in the Netherlands. All ways in which Low Saxon is written in Germany work similarly to how standard German is written, all ways of spelling L. S. in the Netherlands follow the patterns of Dutch orthography (e. g. "z" is used in the Netherlands were Germans write "s", "eu" for "ö", "u" for "ü", "oe" for "u", "v" for "w" initial "i" for "j" and many more). Furthermore, due to historical reasons, Low Saxon in the Netherlands borrows heavily from Dutch, while the dialects spoken in Germany feature a large number of phrasings, technical expressions etc. from German. Because of these facts, users from the Netherlands as well as from Germany agreed earlier this year that a joint Wikipedia is not feasible because of practical reasons. Hope this helps a little to understand the background of their request for a separate wiki. Of course I don't expect you to change your mind now. But I think accepting the majority decision (even if you don't favor it personally) would not hurt anyone either, would it? Arbeo 18:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I may consider changing my vote -- I only opposed because it looked like Servien was trying to ram it through without consensus and without considering other possibilities. Even if I change my vote, I still won't see that as consensus -- new language editions have always required a pretty strong consensus, I think, and this is only debateably consensus at all, much less strong. However, I'm not blocking anything. I have no special ability to block the creation of new wikis. Consensus is not my final call. Tuf-Kat 01:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
That wasn't pointed at you, Tuf-Kat. I noticed very well that your standpoint was not prejudiced and also that Chamdarae was trying to contribute in a friendly and constructive manner. But I must say - guess I'm repeating myself here ;-) - that I'm extremely dissatisfied with the way the request was handled so far. Ramming something through should take place here but neither should a decision on a new language take four months in the first because people fail to cooperate (not your fault or Chamdarae's because you've joined the discussion only recently). Let's all try to handle requests in a more accommodating, helpful and efficient manner in the future. Arbeo 15:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

DLS request, version 2.0

This is my final attempt to enable a reasonable solution here.

basic assumptions:

  • Low Saxon is one language consisting of several dialects in some cases called "regional language", "streektaal" or the like.
  • There are at least 20 main dialects of Low Saxon, therefore creating Wikipedias for the individual dialects is not workable. "More people who share a common language (or "very similar languages", if you prefer) working together can ultimately create a larger, more detailed, and generally higher-quality encyclopaedia."(M. Williamson)
    • The problem is who shares which languages. I would disagree that all Low Saxon speakers in the Netherlands have speech which is similar enough for a single WP. That is the issue here. And why is it not workable to create 20 separate WPs? Anyhow, as far as I can tell, your "20 main dialects" includes many dialects which are in fact not "main dialects" but rather "subdialects". I think that in total, 5~7 WPs would be created for LS in the Netherlands; 2~5 new ones for LS in Germany (Westphalian, Eastphalian, etc).
  • Low Saxon is primarily spoken in Germany and the Netherlands. The national border is not a dialect border in a strict linguistic sense.
  • In written Low Saxon, the national boundary is clearly discernible mainly due to spelling conventions and influences from the respective dominating national languages.
  • The existing nds Wikipedia is de facto limited to dialects spoken in Germany.
  • There is general agreement on the fact that it is not possible to incorporate all German and Dutch dialects into a single Low Saxon Wikipedia mainly due to the lack of a generally accepted common orthography.
    • No -- if that were an issue, a lossless orthographic converter could be designed. Servien and Heiko Evermann whinged when I proposed this, so apparently the main objection is vocabulary differences, although these too can be incorporated into a lossless or nearly-lossless converter, so long as the grammar is the same. But that's not the issue -- the issue is that Appeldoorn dialect and Schleswig dialect are too different to understand. My argument is that Veluws dialect and Gronings dialect are too different to understand. --Node ue 05:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There are a number of editors who wish to contribute to Wikipedia using Low Saxon dialects from the Netherlands but can't.
  • They need a seperate Wikipedia.

Taking into account the most important points put forward here during a long discussion, I would like to recommend a modified request for a Wikipedia open to all Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands

Your new proposal does not take into account all these points. It completely ignores the objections of the 4 opposing voters, namely that Dutch dialects of Lowlands Saxon are too dissimilar to share a WP.

1. The linguistically incorrect term "Dutch Low Saxon" is discarded.
2. The name of the new Wikipedia (as it appears in interwiki links etc.) will be "Nedersaksisch" which is the most common way of referring to the Low Saxon language as a whole in the Netherlands. The name of the Low Saxon Wikipedia for Germany is "Plattdüütsch", the name by which Low Saxon is generally referred to by its speakers in Germany.

"Nedersaksisch"/"Nedersassich" is also used in Germany (though not as widely). Thus that name is still ambiguous.

3. Where needed, the name of the Nedersaksisch Wikipedia is translated into other languages as "Low Saxon (NL)" or "Low Saxon, Netherlands". It is recommended to refer to the Plattdüütsch Wikipedia as "Low Saxon (D)" or "Low Saxon, Germany" when not using its self-designation.
4. It will be stated on the Wikipedia's main page that it is open to all dialects of Low Saxon used in the Netherlands.
5. The names of the principal Low Saxon dialects/regional languages spoken in the Netherlands (Veluws, Grunings, Stellingwerfs ...) will be placed prominently on the Wikipedia's main page.

What evidence do you have to the effect that Gronings, Veluws, and Stellingwarfs are any more easily mutually comprehensible?

6. There will be a prominent link (different from links to Wikipedias in other languages) to the Plattdüütsch WP, detailing that it features articles written in Low Saxon dialects used in Germany. The same procedure is recommended vice versa.

Not all LS dialects in Germany -- just North Low Saxon (mostly Hamburg dialect, but also East Friesland and Schleswig-Holstien dialects). It should already be suitable, to a certain extent, for Gronings speakers, at least to a much greater degree than Servien's Veluws WP would be. This is, of course, if an orthographic conversion were to be implemented.

7. It is recommended that each encyclopedia article be written in a single, distinct dialect/streektaal.

Inevitably, one will dominate.
a. A label will be attached to each article, indicitating which dialect/streektaal it is written in.
This is not a "modification". Servien already did that for some of the articles on his test-wiki.
b. In cases where words from a particular dialect/streektaal are not understood by speakers of other Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands, appropriate alternatives are selected.
And how could that not work for allowing the same exact dialects on Yes, I know, the alphabet issue. But the alphabet issue is, again, easily solvable, so any use of it in arguments is basically FUD. So, if we allow "appropriate alternatives" on Servien's brand-new WP, why couldn't we do the same on the existing nds.wp, with alphabet conversion?

8. An appropriate domain name for the Nedersaksisch Wikipedia is determined by consensus. If consensus can not be achieved within a week, it is determined by majority.

I strongly disagree to this, moreso than others., if to be only for German dialects, belongs at nds-de.

9. It is recommend that the Nedersakisch and the Plattdüütsch Wikipedia cooperate with respect to their common aim of catering for speakers of all variants of the Low Saxon language.
10. In the event that, despite continuous efforts, the two Wikipedias should not be able to cater for speakers of all variants of Low Saxon in a reasonable way, further Low Saxon Wikipedias can be created.

OK, that was my final contribution to this debate. I'm outta here. 'Scheun' Tach noch!' Arbeo 18:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I think this is a very reasonable request. I don't think anyone can say no to this! Thanks Arbeo for creating this list, if anybody has any further comments please state them here. Du ooch ne Scheune Tach noch! Servien 18:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I have to again disagree to this. The only difference I see is that it no longer uses the name "Dutch Low SAxon". --Node ue 01:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Ahh, and Arbeo, you said something later on the page that a request for new language shouldn't go on for 4 months. What about the ones that've been so much longer, like Extremaduran, Fala, Udmurtian, and others which have been delayed for a really long time for no apparent reason? Opposition to a DLS WP is on specific basis and there are ALTERNATIVE proposals in existence. It seems to me that Servien is indeed trying to "ram" his request through without even considering compromise.
Now, you said there are over 20 main dialects of Low Saxon. Yes, this is true, but for most dialects in Germany, don't most people consider they speak the same language? As long as the people call their language the same thing and agree they speak one language, there's no reason for a separate WP.
In the Netherlands, on the other hand, there are... what, 7 or 8 main dialects? And speakers of each MOSTLY consider that they speak individual languages. There is no single Lowlands Saxon organisation in the Netherlands like in Germany; instead there are organisations for the individual Saxic languages like STellingwarfs, Grunnegers, etc. and each considers itself as a separate language.
Now, since this is a very hot issue, I think before actually moving forward it would be nessecary to bring in the opinion sof experts and community orgs. --Node ue 02:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this is reasonable. I would support this proposal. Tuf-Kat 04:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Tuf-Kat, I'm not sure exactly how it's reasonable. Its only diference with Servien's proposal is the name, and the final aspect (#10). However ,based on Servien's attitudes so far, I think he would try to block any and all attempts Gronings, Stellingwarfs, Achterhoeks, etc. speakers may take to split off from "his" WP. --Node ue 05:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it is the same in most ways, but it definitely states a far more convincing case. As noted above, however, I was never extremely opposed to the DLS idea, but was concerned about its execution. This proposal assuages my concerns. While I agree that Servien's attitude has not been exemplary thus far, I think your claim is a stretch -- at worst, I'd think he'd protest the inclusion of non-Veluws dialects in this wiki and would presumably support spinning them off to a different one. In any case, if there's a consensus to do so, I have the utmost faith it would happen despite any foot-dragging Servien might try. I guess what I like is that Arbeo specifically notes that there are spelling conventions which differ between the German and Dutch Low Saxon dialects. I think it's reasonable to try and accomodate this distinctions; if either of the Low Saxon wikis ever find it too unreasonable to maintain a single project, then either or both can split. Has the German project ever had significant disputes on this? I suppose the theoretical ideal would likely be a number of wikis for different dialects on both sides of the border, but since that seems to be unlikely anytime in the near future, a wiki that would allow Low Saxon speakers to collaborate sounds like a good idea. Perhaps both Low Saxon wikis could have a stated goal of eventually producing high-quality articles in several of the most distinct dialects that could eventually be spun off. Tuf-Kat 06:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
First of all, someone already made separate proposals for a Wiki in Stellingwarfs and Grunnings, and Servien opposed them. However, when somebody wrote in Grunnings in his test-wiki, he changed some of the words to Veluws (most notably sproak -> taol). Now, if, as you seem to think, the main issue were spelling, it could be easily solved by lossless orthographic conversion which is mentioned at the "Proposed policy for... new languages", and "Dutch Low Saxon" would easily fit within the framework of the NDS Wikipedia. However, when this has been suggested before, Servien looks for even the smallest differences in vocabulary and says "oh this isn't what I speak", even though it's perfectly comprehensible. Also, as in the Chinese WP, if orthographic conversion does not solve the problem fully, lexical conversion can also be done for words that are different between the two countries due to loanwords. However, it should also be noted that in the past, nobody ever tried to write the dialects ofthe Netherlands in one place, rather, separate bible translations, separate Asterix translations, separate translations of Le Petit Prince, and the like, have been done, and there are organisations to promote each of the individual dialects but no umbrella organisation for all Low Saxon in the Netherlands. --Node ue 08:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the replies. I know Node ue doesn't support this project at all, he'd like to see seperate dialect wiki's but I don't think this is very practical. I don't mind if people want a Grunnings wiki, I'm not gonna block it or anything, I can't even remember I was opposed, this was probably because it was suggested by an anonymous user who is not very active, so I didn't really take it seriously. Of course the interface will be translated in the different dialects, this is why I haven't started it yet. I'll make a few changes in the template (the name etc. which was suggested) If anyone has a suggestion for a propper ISO-code please list them here so people can vote on the best on which can be used if created. Servien 10:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone have an idea as to what ISO-code could be used? Some examples: ns/nsk/qnds/ndsn does anyone know another example, so we can vote which can be used. Servien

What do they count

Seems that they count supporters for Venetian and people ready to join for Udmurt. Maybe it'd be logical to add those numers or to count only the ones who are ready to edit the new WP?.. - Slavik IVANOV 00:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the benefit of counting anything is in this case. Some people presumably think it's important, but I don't know why. Tuf-Kat 02:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I have also noticed this strange method of counting, but I think that the number of supporters / of people ready to join is not important as a whole. We (the men proposes to create the Udmurt Wiki) have two native speakers integrated with Internet and ready to join (there are, I hope, more people who want to write articles in Udmurt, but they don't speak English at all and cannot participate this discussion and even leave their names there), we have three very experienced users (sysops of rapidly growing Tatar, Chuvash and Ossetic Wikipedias) who are also interested to help the Udmurt project. This kind of statistics, in my opinion, is really important; the simply number of nicknames in supporter's lists is not so important from this point of view. --Denis Sacharnych 05:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's a problem, when potential contributors do not speak english. Sadly, this is a VERY big problem, especially with small endangered languages, since this way they kind of look dead, when they are simply lacking english speakers. --bertodsera 05:00, 26 March 2006 (GMT+2)

Banyumasan wikipedia

Banyumasan wikipedia has been approved since October 2, 2005 and the subdomain code has been accepted as map-bms by its supporter since 18 November 2005, but the site still not created until now. Borgx 02:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC) and until now Borgx 06:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that perhaps there is a lack of communication between those who approve and the developers. Perhaps it should be the developers who ultimately decide what to approve or not? Stettlerj 21:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's now created at

Ligurian Wikipedia proposal

Previously the proposal for a Ligurian Wikipedia was moved to the section Requests_for_new_languages/Native_speaker_support because there was and still is consensus for its creation but at that time lacked native speakers. The proposal now has native speaker support. (About 3 or 4 users have shown up at the proposal and voiced support indicating also that they are native speakers of Ligurian). Perhaps that proposal can now be moved to the Approved requests section.--Harvzsf 06:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Franco-Provençal/Arpitan Wikipedia proposal

The Franco-Provençal/Arpitan request currently located at the section Requests_for_new_languages/Native_speaker_support now has native speaker support. About two users have indicated that they are native speakers of this language who support this project. Perhaps the Franco-Provençal/Arpitan proposal can now be moved to the Approved requests section --Harvzsf 06:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the hint, Harvzsf. I've moved it here. Arbeo 21:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Kalmyk Wikipedia proposal

The Kalmyk request currently located at [[2]] has extensive native speaker support. At least 13 users have indicated that they are native speakers of this language who support this project. Would be nice idea to move Kalmyk proposal to the Approved requests section. -- Calmouk 15:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it here (35 support, 0 oppose, 14 native). --ajvol 20:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia has now been created at --Harvzsf 03:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the Point ?

Is there a policy of no new wiki's ? Perhaps the Pennsylvania German language could take over a wiki that is dead ! Cause, what's the point of this site. What is up ? While we've been waiting for the wiki to get set up we have become one of the larger smaller language wikis PG "Wiki", but yet can't get any respect :) Stettlerj 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Appeal to developers

Dear developers, please make work of creating new wikipedias!! Some of approved wikipedias are waiting for more than two mounts by now, and I think it's really frustrating for people who want to work on them to wait so long Kneiphof 21:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Any developers visit here? HenryLi 16:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
No, to get a Wikipedia created you have to e-mail the wikitech mailing list, theoretically. It probably won't happen though. There really isn't any way to make new language wikis. Tuf-Kat 03:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems there's hardly any response from developers in the mailing list. HenryLi 12:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Any ideas on what can be done? Jade Knight 22:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yay! They're all created! Wonderful! The Jade Knight 23:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Since we complained a bit, we should now give a big THANKS to the developers!--Clemens 03:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed we should! Caesarion 10:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Seconded! Mèrcie bein des fais! The Jade Knight 03:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Could I make a same request for wikisource. Some of the langage wikisources have passed the language domain request since november 2005 and they still have not been created and in particular Bosnian wikiquote. Please help. Thanks --Dado 02:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

TWO proposals for Papiamentu Wikipedia

A few native speakers have set up a request for a Papiamentu Wikipedia which is on the Requests_for_new_languages page. However, there was already another proposal for this same language. The earlier proposal was placed in the Requests_for_new_languages/Native_speaker_support page because of lack of native speakers.

Because both proposals are in effect the same request, perhaps the votes from both proposals can be combined into a single proposal and moved to the Approved requests page. There is still the question of when and if the developers decide to create the new wikis, but while waiting for them to act, it might be good to move the Papiamentu proposals here so that in the event they do decide to create new wikis, Papiamentu can be included--Harvzsf 02:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Test-wikis by article count

I've gone and added a new section listing test-wikis by article count. Could people please go and check that I've gotten the right words for "articles" (I tried to guess from the test-wiki pages), and could someone provide the Cantonese word? Thanks. Jade Knight 01:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for creation of Cebuano Wiktionary and Wikibooks.... and also Ilokano Wiktionary

Attention developers:

I would like to request the creation of the Cebuano Wiktionary ( and Wikibooks ( domains. This has already been approved, as can be seen in the content page of this page. Thanks. --Bentong Isles 07:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ilokano Wiktionary

May I also request the creation of the recently approved Ilokano Wiktionary. We are eager to start work ing on it. Thanks! -- Saluyot 01:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

(Overhasty) Approval of Zazaki Wikipedia

Current standard practice here is to declare requests for new languages "approved" only if 75% of all users have voted in favor of them. This incorporates the views of those Wikip(m)edians that think full consensus (i. e. 100% "yes") should be required for any new wiki as well as the standpoint of those who think that a simple majority (50% plus one vote) is sufficient. That is why a number of requests with more "support"s than "oppose"s are still on the main page under "discussion ongoing".
It is essential that approving all requests takes place in an orderly and equal manner, so developers (they are the only ones that can create new Wikipedias!) can fully rely on the fact that all requests listed here on this page as "approved" are really accepted by the community. A little bit of patience is needed - and it usually pays off (just ask the editors of the 15 new Wikipedias that got created in March). Thank you!

Arbeo 09:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the Zh-wuu Wikipedia

One and a half years have past since we applied for a Wu-Chinese/Shanghainese Wikipedia. Now, Cantonese Wikipedia has been created and what about Wu/Shanghainese? It is the second largest language in China(only second to Mandarin) with more than 80 million native speakers. And the vote here now shows that 18 people out of 20 approved the request and a list of people(potentially more) are willing to contribute to the Wu Wikipedia. And we are now setting up a test page of zh-wuu Wikipedia. Could developers please consider creating the Wu Chinese Wikipedia in the near future? 吴人 19:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Zazaki Wikipedia

I asked admins Arbeo and Steinbach when I put the Zazaki Wikipedia on the approved Wikipedias page. So, this was not my personal decision. I and my friends don't want to engage in an edit war. However, we strongly want to see a Zazaki Wikipedia, and I believe we did everything to make this happen. --Maviulke12 23:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither of them are admins... hello... just because you strongly want it, doesn't mean you will get it. There are other people who strongly wanted their Wikipedias, but they weren't created for various reasons. You have less than 75% of votes as "support". For that reason it cannot be approved. --Node ue 02:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't really believe that you represent a fair point of view. You are so hateful against our project. And unfortunetely, we don't know why. We just not only seriously want a Zazaki Wikipedia, but we also worked very hard for the Zazaki Test Wikipedia [3]. Our test-wikipedia is one of the best among test-wikipedias, and better than even some active wikipedias. Creation of the Zazaki Wikipedia meets every creteria: Every academic study points-out its distinctiveness. We have many native contributers. We have a very good test-wikipedia. I don't think that we deserve to stuck here for seven months.--Maviulke12 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
What you deserve is irrelevant. What matters is that you follow the rules that everyone else has to follow. You are not more special than anyone else. Other Wikipedias had to wait for year, two years, or even were never created at all. You need to wait your turn. --Node ue 18:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Upper Sorbian

It would be nice Wikipedia and incubator has more articles and contributions than many regular Wikipedias. --Dezidor 20:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Christmas and gifts

It would be nice for the Christmas to creat these approved requests. It would be very nice gift from developers side. Zordsdavini 08:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Though I believe in Christianity, I don't support your idea. I think we are better to be neutral from all religious or political action. There are many Jews, Islams, Hindu faithful or Buddhists who are good Wikimedians. I think it better not to discourage them. --Aphaia 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. I tryed to find way for date till New Year. Sorry for those who beleves in different way (I am, too) and have celibrations on other day. And after all - this step would be very nice :) Zordsdavini 08:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Why people have to wait so long. It's all have to be in good faith but it looks to be speaking to the space. When new wikis will be? Zordsdavini 07:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are all requests? There were only one step for creation... So, have the request to be from the begining? Zordsdavini 07:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I found at last :( Very sad to do everything from the begining... Zordsdavini 07:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)