Jump to content

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Ripuarian

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Ripuarian Wikipedia[edit]

submitted verification final decision
This proposal has been approved.
The Board of Trustees and language committee have deemed that there is sufficient grounds and community to create the new language project.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

The requested project was created at ksh: at an indeterminate date. Note that this request was approved before the implementation of the standardised Language proposal policy, and should not be used as a model for future requests. Shanel 00:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

  • Support Caesarion Velim, non opto. It's closely related to Limburgish and Luxemburgish and quite unique in character. I could contribute in the Kerkrade dialect. 15:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This is not a language. Ripurian is one of numerous dialects that make up the German language. The German Wikipedia is so successful because speakers of every dialect contribute their knowledge using the written standard. Arbeo 16:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC) I withdrew my vote today because I don't want to block anything that a very clear of my fellow editors wants. Arbeo 15:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait a sec. You should explain to me why you support a Francoprovençal Wikipedia but oppose one in Ripuarian. Both France and Germany are home of many regional languages that were formerly unanimously called dialects but are now increasingly considered languages. Ripuarian is quite different from Standard German, since 1) old Germanic vowels developed quite differently in Ripuarian than they did in High Franconian (=German); 2) Ripuarian is Middle German, not High German, so it is by far not as much affected by the second Lautverschiebung as Standard German is (so it is quite more distant from German than Bavarian is) and 3) last but not least, it is a tonal language. Trust me, Ripuarian definitely is a separate language. If you oppose having a Ripuarian language you should immediately ask the developers to close down the Limburgish and Alemannic Wikipedias. Finally, having Wikipedias in several regional languages (I think, with Bavarian, Ripuarian and possibly High Saxon we've just done our jobs for Germany) should not distract too many users from the German Wikipedia, since they partly attract a different type of users, and may be a haven for all of them who lose their way in huge pedias like en: and de: and don't know what to write about anymore. Caesarion Velim, non opto 21:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Caesarion! At the end of the day, it's always a case by case decision, of course. But as a general rule of thumb I believe Wikipedias for dialects are to be avoided - and unlike you in this particular case I do consider Ripurian/Kölsch a dialect. This evaluation is, by the way, in line with what a clear majority of relevant scientists thinks about that idiom ("Ethnologue" is very useful but does nevertheless have a few systematic flaws here and there). I'm by no means against dialects or regional languages (as you can see on this page). In fact, I use one quite frequently. But I'm also convinced that if you set out to build a premium encyclopedia using a regional dialect is not the most beneficial option to achive that aim. Arbeo 20:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This case is quite similar to the Francoprovençal one above. Let's compare them: there is a flourishing French Wikipedia. France is linguistically divided in several regional languages, formerly called dialects. The French standard variety belongs to the oïl languages. The other main group is called oc languages and has had a Wikipedia for quite some time now (oc:). Francoprovençal is really in between, and thus clearly qualifies as a separate language. Now: there is an even more flourishing German Wikipedia. Germany is linguistically divided in several regional languages, formerly called dialects. The German standard variety belongs to the High German languages. The other main group is called Low German and has had a Wikipedia for quite some time now (nds:). Ripuarian, being a Middle German variety, is really in between, and qualifies even more clearly as separate language. That we call the German variants dialects, not closely related languages, ensues from the presence of a very strong Standard language. If there hadn't been such a strong standard German, nobody would doubt the status of Bavarian, Alemannic and Ripuarian as separate languages, as little as they do for Hawaiian, Tahitian, Tuvaluan and Maori, just to name an example. Caesarion Velim, non opto 10:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Practically everything you're writing is correct and nothing is new to me. Maybe one minor adjustment: dialects are still called dialects here (not "formerly"). Still, I can't think of a single benefit a Ripurian WP could present to anyone. It will always provide less content of inferior quality and be harder to read and even more difficult to write to every "Ripurian" than the standard German WP. But if some people want it anyway, Wikicities might be the right place. Arbeo 15:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi Arbeo, it is of course correct that the varieties we are discussing now (mind: varieties is the best and most neutral term you can use in discussions like these :-)) are still broadly called dialects. I just wanted to say that they are no longer unanimously called so, since some people are calling them languages for linguistic reasons. And while a Ripuarian Wikipedia will indeed never get up with the German one both in quantity and quality, the very same goes for Sorbian and North Frisian - perhaps even more so, for they have much fewer speakers. And it seems to me untrue that a Ripuarian Wikipedia won't benefit anyone: It is always nice when you can consult information in your own native language or the language you cherish. And while many regional language (yet another more or less neutral term) speakers have difficulty with writing their own variety, the efforts to be done to write it are incomparable to those done before to read and write German: they can learn writing their dialect within a week, and pick it up fully by close reading within less than a month. And after all, they can consult de: or en: for some more detailed information, but that is exactly what we in the Netherlands do when nl: does not provide the information we want. Caesarion Velim, non opto 10:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Agreed with practically everything you're writing (once again!). However, a serious concern of mine is that once you start admitting regional language varieties on Wikipedia (apart from the few ones we already have) you're opening the door to a virtually unlimited number of regional and even local variants and sub-variants. While the number of languages in the world is not clearly definable but somewhat finite, the number of varieties and sub-varieties is downright infinite. Also in view of the Bavarian and Murcian discussions (and many more that are surely bound to come) I believe we should think about introducing certain standards or rules for those cases before creating any further precedences. (IMHO, for European idioms the Charter for Regional or Minority Languages - cf. [1] [2] - could serve as a guideline ... but I'm afraid the Ripurians ain't gonna agree here ;-) ) Arbeo 18:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • While it is true that Wikipedias like these create precedents, I think Ripuarian does qualify as a regional language, for the same reasons as its Low German counterpart, Limburgish, does. My opinion is that the existence of li: justifies the creation of a Ripuarian Wikipedia. What I discourage however is a Wikipedia in dialects like West Thuringian, which is really to close to German. Also of dialects like High Saxon (Magdeburg or Berlin dialects) the language status would be very doubtful. When "they" come up with requests with dialects like these, I will be the first to oppose them. But Ripuarian is really quite far removed from Standard German, more so than Bavarian. Caesarion Velim, non opto 08:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Arbeo, each textbook I choose, and all the Wikipediæ that I can read, if they have it, they define dialect as a language, which ... - so your opposition appears based on sheer ignorance of reality.-- 10:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi! Rest assured, I am quite familiar with reality. Btw: Encyclopædia Britannica writes Variety of a language spoken by a group of people..., Brockhaus says Örtlich bedingte Sprachform innerhalb einer Sprachgemeinschaft. and the Wikipedias I can read all state something like variety of a language, Varietät einer Sprache, variante d'une langue, variante de una lengua, разновидность языка, språklig varietet or the like. Arbeo 15:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Call it dialect what others call regional language, it is only a matter of definition ('a language is a dialect with an army'). As a matter of fact, there is quite a number of regional language wikipedias in different countries, so why should Ripuarian be treated differently? Dbach 12:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Purodha Blissenbach 11:26, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
    • Support. Ripuarian certainly is a distinct language, consisting of more than 100 dialects. Dbach 14:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose. dialect. --Elian 02:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does not Standard, or TV German, relate to all these German Platts and Allemmanic langs etc. (from Italy over Poland, Romania, Chechoslovakia and Nederland/Begium/Luxemburg to entire Scandinavia) the same way as worldwide use of english relates to all languages on earth? Why are especially Germans so inclined to shut up each other languagewise? I pefectly understand Turkisch stamping out Kurdi; but germanic languages do not even have a state. This particular version is split over three countries and four states, apparently. What the fuzz, why not allowing them to write if they want? See testwiki, some 7 contributors have created some 30 Articles in three weeks, half of which seem non-stubs, several having images, etc.. Assuming the same amount of work went into coordination and into the Wikipedia-Namespace, I call this dedication, which ultimately leads to success.-- 11:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Standard German is a relatively new invention and has been promoted much less than, say, Standard French in France (where 200 years ago it was forbidden in some areas to speak regional languages), not only for linguistic but also for political reasons - Germany as an entity is an even younger invention. Therefore, regional languages (not dialects) are much more important in Germany and countries with a similar history. They are spoken in everyday-life, and regional language wikipedias have been successfull in high-German (Bavarian, Allemanic) and low-German (low saxon), why not in a middle-German language? After all, Ripuarian is not at all a dialect. There is a lot of regional language wikipedias springing up now, but why forbid one and allow the others? Regional language wikis do attract people who would not be active (or that active) in a standard language wiki; also I would not assume that distracting some minimal attention from the second-biggest wikipedia would be a disaster. As long as there are more or less vivid wikipedias in ancient and non-existing languages like Gothic and Clingon, why should a regional language wiki not be successful? Right now, the Ripuarian Testwiki has more articels than the smallest 77 wikipedias, including a lot of standard language projects. Dbach 12:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it would be only called Kölsch one could claim this ist just the dialect of a German city but the term Ripuarisch is unique. So it seems to me it is a language by it self. Regards ejfis

Support-- 11:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language Code and Domain:

I don't know wether or not this is the right place for the subject matter. If it not so, please point me to a better place. Thank you.
SIL Code ksh is for Kölsch only but the wiki shall address all ripuarian languages. Kölsch is the most prominent ripuarian language (by public knowledge and recognition, number of speakers, scholar and reseach papers, etc.) but accounts at most for one third of overall ripurian speakers (estimated). There is no code for 'all ripurian' in either SIL or ISO as of today. Through SIL, ksh is being suggested for ISO-639-3 automatically. ISO-639-3 currently has gem which is a vast superset of ripuarian, and expicitly includes Kölsch (but makes no mention of code ksh yet). A move is being started, to request ksh into ISO-639-2, and either of frp (franconian ripuarian/francique ripuaire) or grp (germanic-ripurarian) into ISO-639-3.
We are discussing the question: 'which code to use?' internally, too. -- Purodha Blissenbach 16:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is your claim that "gem-rip" is inappropriate? If so, what would you like to change it to? Keep in mind that if an official ISO code is approved at some later date, I'm certain the wiki can be moved to the new location without much fuss. Tuf-Kat 20:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather suggest frp, grp-frp, or grp, grp-grp, respectively, favouring a simple 3-letter code. I cannot call rip, gem-rip inappropriate, yet I personally dislike its resemblance of the R.I.P. found on our graveyards. My suggestion is based on the fact that with frp, and grp, people looking the code up will receive the most acurate and helpful clue as to which languages these are. I also believe that changing the code later would not be critical - though the easiest way is to avoid that, of course. --Purodha Blissenbach 11:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'frp' is Franco-Provençal in ISO-639-3. As of today, 'grp' is unassigned in ISO-639-2,3,4 and by SIL 15th ed. So 'grp' would be the choice? -- 14:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. --Purodha Blissenbach 10:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think 'grp' is proper. --Metacaesius 12:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too many people visit it and our entire servers get misused? - 15:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

  • SIL Code ksh had been suggested to be addded to ISO 639-2 in April 2005 and later, by different parties. The ISO-639 Joint Advisory Committee rejected the addition last friday on the sole ground that, ksh is in the ISO/DIS 639-3 List (that is, the SIL-Code list) wich is currently being developped as a ISO standard. The full e-mail text is available [4]. -- 04:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]