Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Dutch Low Saxon

< Requests for new languages

Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia

edit
submitted verification final decision
  This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 01:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Relevant infos:
    • One of the Dutch official languages just like Frisian and Limburgs
    • App. number of speakers: No estimate available except for the province of Groningen which is: 592,000. My estimate is about 1.8 million who speak Dutch-Low Saxon.
    • Location(s) spoken: East and northern Netherlands
    • Closely related languages, if any: Dutch, Afrikaans, Frisian, Limburgs and German-Low Saxon
    • External links to organizations that promote the language: Streektaal.net, Lowlands-L.net
  • Summary of support:
  1. Servien
  2. Caesarion
  3. Heiko Evermann (Heiko Evermann)
  4. Waerth
  5. Quistnix
  6. ProfSjors
  7. Bart v.d. Heij
  8. Slomox
  9. Oscar
  10. Guaka
  11. Arbeo
  12. Tuf-Kat
  13. Dinsdagskind
  14. Nijman
  15. Frünn
  16. Raetius
  17. Fnorp
  18. Flyingbird
  19. Migdejong
  20. Patio
  21. Tubantia N
  22. – gpvos (talk)

In case NODE UE decides to put back the socalled "anon users" please check your sources there are clearly tons of edits so I don't know how you can't say they have 0 edits? Das seker Amerikaonse logika of soiets, of meschien gewoon 'n domme aktie van 'n gebruker die syn bronnen nie kentroleert:
-- see: Fnorp's edits
-- see: Migdejong's edits
-- see: ProfSjors' edits
-- see: Nijman's edits
-- see: Heiko's edits

  • Summary of oppose:
  1. Node ue
  2. 81.70.91.207
  3. 220.149.85.57
Comments
    • Actually redundant with nds:, but it would be very neat, just since the nds: Wikipedia uses German spelling, and articles in Dutch based spelling would be largely incompatible with it. Caesarion 14:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The number of speakers might be slightly too optimistic: 1.8 million seems more likely.
    • Strong oppose. Servien is proposing to divide Low Saxon based on national boundaries and imagined differences, rather than true dialectal differences. However, if Servien limits his request to Veluws only, I will support it. --Node ue 16:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • But ADMIT that the fact that nds:, being for all Low German varieties, already has almost unbearable differences (or did you think an Apeldoorn dialect native speaker could understand West Pomerian?), and that these differences, in combination with the wide gap between Dutch and German spellings make nfs: unsuitable for any content in Dutch Low Saxon dialects. Caesarion 17:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Lowlands-l does not help here. After some discussions we have decided to use the German based spelling according to SASS for the nds wikipedia. The spelling proposed by Lowlands-l is no option for us. And I can understand very well, that the Dutch based spelling and our spelling do not match. In addition to that we have another problem: when Low Saxon lacks a word, we (on the German side of the border) have the tendency to borrow a German word, and on the other side of the border they would certainly prefer to borrow a dutch word. The language fell apart a long time ago. In fact most people in Germany do not even know that there is a Low Saxon language on the other side of the border. When I think about the two different versions of the Norse wikipedia that are made for one single country and when I think about the Aromunian wikipedia, I think that having a separate wikipeda for nds-nl is the best option. HeikoEvermann 11:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually we are unifying the spelling (to the spelling according to Sass) whereever we find differences. The only real exception that we list alternative spellings for the title of the article in the first paragraph and we sometimes provide redirects from alternative spellings to the main article. But the article itself should follow Sass. HeikoEvermann 10:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • In fact this fact has no relevance whatsoever. Being a native speaker has not been a prerequisite for working on any wikipedia. I am not a native English speaker either and yet I have made contributions to en.wikipedia.org. HeikoEvermann 21:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what shall we try first? I looked for a comparison in English language and I would say, that nds-de and nds-nl are as far apart in pronounciation and in spelling as modern English and the 1400 example of middle English in en:Middle English (this isn't the best comparison because one is a parallel development and the other serial, but the best example I found). If it were possible I really would like and want one Wikipedia for both. But it would be very hard to understand. Sure, if there would be a common orthography neither based singly on German nor on Dutch, this would be easier, but there is no such common orthography that is in broader use. The actual reality is, that we need two Wikipedias. --Slomox 16:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • strong support. there's nothing like unity in diversity :-) oscar 00:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • support. Maybe we should count the votes now? Guaka 20:49, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • 5 7 people willing to work on it, 2 3 4 5 other people's support, 1 generally support and
      • 1 2 3 4 non-DLS speakers oppose.
        • Well, if it's so relevant who is and isn't DLS speakers of OPPOSING votes, perhaps we should count the same for support votes? Out of all the massive amazing 12 supporters, a whopping 2 of them are real native speakers. 2-0 is not a good enough consensus for any WP's creation, so I suggest you don't exclude the opinions of non-speakers as it's to your disadvantage, especially since the issues we raise are very real and rather than completely denying the possibility of WPs in DLS varieties, we are merely proposing it in a different framework. --Node ue 07:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • support Arbeo 18:46, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • I generally support this proposal, but I would recommend 1) narrowing the range of dialects covered, and 2) allowing for further wikipedias at a later date in other varieties of Low Saxon in the Netherlands, such as Gronings and Stellingwerfs, if and when there is sufficient support for these. (I realise these issues have been discussed on the mailing lists, but it doesn't seem that there is a sufficient degree of consensus yet for this request to proceed any further. I don't want to rekindle any flame war here - merely find some kind of workable solution. After all, I think everyone here wants to see a wikipedia in some form(s) of Dutch Low Saxon.) --Chamdarae 17:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Dutch Low-Saxon is a combination of dialects without a single language combining them. As such, something written in Gronings will be as incompatible with something written in Twents or Achterhoeks as something written in Dutch or German Low Saxon would be. As far as I know, no unified orthography or even vocabulary exists. - 81.70.91.207 22:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands have in common that their spelling is based on the Dutch spelling, while the spellings used in Germany are based on the German spelling. Best example is the use of capitals for nouns, almost everybody in Germany who writes in Low Saxon uses it, while in the Netherlands almost no one uses it. Dinsdagskind 18:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - The people who keep this wikipedia back are not even Low Saxon, so please get a live! Bart v.d. Heij 12:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Bart van der Heij, please understand that the reason for opposing this is not that I don't think Low Saxon dialects should have Wikipedias. Rather, it is that I think it is too broad and imaginary of a grouping. I advocate for separate Wikipedias for example Veluws, Gronings, Stellingwerfs. So I do support Wikipedias in Dutch Low Saxon varieties, but not as it is sorted in this proposal. Node ue 02:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've moved it back. There is only one native speaker willing to work on it at this time, and there is no consensus for its creation, so this request can not be granted. Tuf-Kat 15:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've moved it back, there is a consenses, two native speakers. Servien 17:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Servien, apparently you don't know the meaning of consensus. There are currently 12 people who agree to the creation of a " Dutch-Low Saxon " Wikipedia, and 3 who think it's better to have Wikipedias for individual dialects. I imagine that if you propose to have a Veluws Wikipedia, you will have consensus very quickly. But 12-3 is not consensus. Besides, many of the supporters are users of German-Low Saxon who are just saying "oh yes there's a spelling difference" without know about dialect problems in the Netherlands, or Dutch people saying "oh yes it's a regional language" without recognising the immense issue of dialects which Servien seems to want to ignore by filling up a so-called "Dutch Low Saxon" Wikipedia with his native Veluuws. --Node ue 02:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that 12-3 is not consensus. And only Servien claims here to be a native speaker -- if there are more, then those people need to notate that. Tuf-Kat 03:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I now oppose, making this even less of a consensus at 12-4. I may support if someone can take the time to convince me that there is a standard method of writing that can be called "Dutch Low-Saxon". Tuf-Kat 03:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see a fourth objection here? There are only 3 (Node ue, Tuk-Kat and anonymous)... Node ue was already listed, besides he doesn't even speak DLS. As mentioned before Servien is (N) and Bart is (N)... two natives.... I think 12-3 is a consenses, there is a very good indication DLS is a much wanted Wiki, the people who object are not even DLS or even speak it, I don't even think they should have a say, if they know the language that's a different case, making several dialect wiki's is just too much, you'll have to create Noord-Veluws, Oost-Veluws, Grunnings, Twents, Aachterhoeks, Sallaands, Stellingwarfs, Suud-Drenths, Midden-Drents, Veenkoniaols, Westerwolds, Twents-Graofschaps, Urks etc. BTW: Samogitian (Žemaitėška), Banyumasan don't even have 5 people willing to work on it nor are they native, how does that work. Servien 08:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC) Julle koppies werkie lekkerie![reply]
              • Oops, I miscounted. It is 12-3, and now that Bart has indicated his nativeness, it has two native speakers. Banyumasan has two native speakers and no opposition, so there is clearly consensus for that. There is no consensus here. If you actually attempted to convince me that there is a method of writing called "Dutch Low-Saxon", I'm still open to supporting, but arguing over consensus won't make it so. I for one would have no qualms about a dozen or more different dialectical Low Saxon wikis. Tuf-Kat 10:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hi again Tuf-Kat. It's actually 13-3, one person generally supports it, but anyway, in the procedures it states that there should be at least 5 willing to work on it, it doesn't say if the wiki should be blocked if some non-native people have doubts about it. (Some aren't even surprised about Node ue, he's kind of got a reputation *not meaning to be rude or anything, but kind of does concerning new wiki's*) The nds-wiki, already exist which covers for most of the German LS dialects, so it's proven it can work. This means that the DLS user don't have anywhere to go besides the Dutch wiki for now, different wiki's for each dialect would be kind of impossible, this way the smaller dialects don't have a place to go and the problem isn't solved yet, a common writing system for articles can be thought of by the community, these are small differences, plus each dialect having a large amount of ways to write. So that's why I wanted to create the DLS wiki. Servien 12:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • OK, first of all, what you said about me is VERY wrong. This is the first and so far the only request for a new Wikipedia that I have explicitly opposed. I have supported, or abstained from, all other requests for new Wikipedias, to the point that it irritates some people who would rather not have Wikipedias in languages like Gothic, Cantonese, or Ladino. Second of all. The existing NDS-WP is not working for "most of the German LS dialects". Currently, it's written in North LS of Hamburg area, including dialects like Schleswig-Holstein, East Frisian LS... but nevertheless it is difficult for speakers of other dialects, such as Westphalian, Eastphalian, Mennonite Low Saxon, LS dialects of Poland... etc. So unlike your horrid proposal, it serves based on a real linguistic boundary instead of a national boundary --Node ue 08:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Actually Tuf-Kat was right - the vote now stands at 12-4. Servien, please don't take my words out of context. If my meaning wasn't clear before, I'll make it clear now. I oppose don't fully support having a wikipedia covering all Low Saxon languages in the Netherlands. Before I was actually trying to find some kind of consensus where there clearly was none - although on some matters I think we can agree. Because even the supporters of this proposal agree there is no genuine linguistic basis to it. There are, of course orthographic differences between Low Saxon varieties in the Netherlands and Germany, but then there are also orthographic differences within the Netherlands too. They are often treated as separate languages, both by their speakers as well as by many linguists. Is there any evidence that speakers of Gronings, Stellingwerfs, or other varieties are interested in working on this project? No. Quite the opposite. The two languages I mentioned have both been requested separately (albeit without much support at this stage). What I recommend you do is create a wiki for Veluws. If you find speakers of other Low Saxon varieties who support your plans, include them. If speakers of all the main varieties of "DLS" become interested and there's no significant opposition from other speakers, call it "Dutch-Low Saxon" if you want. But if some of them want to have separate wikis, let them. There's no reason why there can't be successful wikis in multiple varieties of Low Saxon. I support having a Veluws wikipedia. --Chamdarae 17:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think I'm not even gonna bother anymore this is getting really irritating, people blocking the creation who don't even speak it, I'm not gonna bother creating a Veluws, Stellingwarfs or Grunnings wiki because there won't be enough support for that individually. There is a German nds wiki so why shouldn't there be a Dutch nds wiki, this is kind of discriminating. Servien 17:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Listen, Servien. There's a great test-wiki now written in Veluws! Keep writing articles like these and things will be fine. There are many people who will support you. I will even try to write an article (at least a stub) on Ny-Seelaand or Koreaons something. In time I'm sure there will be a large community working on this wiki. Actually calling it "Dutch-Low Saxon" won't necessarily help, because there's no clear support at this stage from speakers of other Low Saxon varieties. Maybe I was a little harsh just before, but I objected to my words being taken out of context. My intention is not to block a wiki being formed - I hope one is formed as soon as possible - but I have *never* supported one covering all Low Saxon languages used in the Netherlands. --Chamdarae 18:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Hi Chamdarae, there is actually a support for the DLS wiki from Twents and Grunnings etc. there's only one anonymous person who created the seperate wiki's. I don't actually feel much for only a Veluws wiki, don't think it will help much, there are not that much people speaking Veluws nowadays, there are more Grunnings and Stellingwarfs and Twents etc. Seperately the wiki's will never comprise of many articles, together they probably/hopefully will, if you'd create a seperate wiki for Veluws etc. you'll have for example about 15 articles, and together about 100/150. Servien 18:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Servien, this seems to me to be an unnessecarily grim outlook. I don't know for sure how many people speak a variety of Veluws, but I think it's somewhere between 100.000 and 500.000. There are already quite a few people on the internet who can speak Veluws. You have certainly already written plenty of Test WP articles. If a "Dutch Low Saxon" WP will only ever have a total of 150 articles, I don't think it's worth creating. I think that is a grim prediction -- Wikipedias in languages like Faroese or Basque already have many more than that. With a little work, I think a Veluws-only WP would do quite nicely. --Node ue 07:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • It was just an example... but anyway, I think it's best to stick with nds-nl, which is an actual language (not a dialect). The code can be changed, no problem, it's not actually called Dutch-Low Saxon, just Low Saxon (Nedersaksisch) but since there are two completely different versions of Low Saxon (Dutch and German; in German it's actually called Plattduutsch only the official ISO-code is nds)... the prefix nds (Nedersaksisch) is more often used in The NL. But anyway this wiki has the least objections, creating seperate dialect wiki's is not a good thing if you ask me. Servien
    • Seperate dialect wiki's are no option this will be too much and everyone will want one. Sticking to the original situation is kind of pointless. Like to know what the best solution would be. Servien 16:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a bit late, but I also do support Nijman N (of course as a native speaker).
    • I still don't think having a wiki in Nedersaksisch is the ideal option, but if native speakers support it, I won't block it. I hope that it can help all the Low Saxon dialects / languages in the Netherlands. --Chamdarae 13:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The "Nedersaksisch" dialects of the Netherlands maybe cover 1/10 of the area of the Low Saxon dialects in Germany - there is no reason why they not should not fit into a common Wikipedia. I am willing to contribute. I hate it when people from other continents (15-year old schoolboys) are pretending they know better. Frünn 21:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And how would you know better than me, seeing as you're not a native speaker? Does being from the Netherlands or Germany somehow make you an infinitely deep well of Lowlands Saxon knowledge? Or are you the one who's pretending to know better? --Node ue 05:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If this Wikipedia is created, how do you plan to solve the problem of dialects? --Node ue 06:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Articles written should be categorised as "Grunnings artikel" etc. as Arbeo suggested, the interface will be translated in more than one dialect and there should be links like e.g. "taol" will also have a "spraok" redirect depends on what the article is written in. BTW thanks for all the support so far. Servien 08:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem a satisfactory solution. As I noted elsewhere, it is likely that one dialect will come to dominate. Dialects with more speakers, will have more articles. Thus, dialects like Stellingwerfs will come out under-represented. Already, you have done a disservice to the NDSNL WP before its creation by replacing all uses of the word "sproak" (and "streektersproak") with the word "toal" (and "streektoal"), even though the article is still labled as written in Grunegers. With regards to support. If all issues like this are clearly resolved, I will change my vote to support. I will only do it begrudgingly, though, because your attitude has been one that you want to ignore all opposition and shove your request through the door without answering to the concerns people have, and such an attitude is clearly a bad thing on ANY Wikipedia, let alone a brand-new one. --Node ue 10:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and you have totally ignored the fact that "nedersaksisch"/"nedersassich" is also used in Germany to a certain extent. To rename your request "nedersaksisch" is to make it totally ambiguous. The response to it is "We already have a Nedersassisch Wikipedia". Even the linguistically inaccurate "Dutch Low Saxon" is better to distinguish it from the existing ndswp. --Node ue 10:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have ALSO ignored the fact that in Tweants, it's called Neersassies. Again that raises the HUGE issue of dialect disunity. --Node ue 01:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The term Plattduutsch is actually used in Germany, the term Nedersaksisch is almost never used in Germany, the makers of the nds wiki reportedly named it Nedersassisch because of Dutch speakers. I can't remember changing articles with sproak/taol... but anyway... this was not my intension and certainly won't happen agains. Just for info sakes... there are more Stellingwarfs speakers than Veluws or Sallands so don't think there will be less in that dialect... but we get your point you're against it, but most are not, you know how a democracy works non, majority rule accepted. If you're so against this wiki I'd like to invite you to request all the dialect wiki's seperately, you won't find very much support for it. (which is actually an understatement) - Servien 'n Goeje naom veur joe sol Seurpiet wesen, jy kan beheurlik krimmenere op s'n Stellingwarfs!
Servien (or maybe I'll call you Seurpiet -- I'm not totally illiterate, you know, I can read LS to at least that degree), I thought you were in the NEtherlands? How do you know anything about Germany? I thought I can't know anything about your language, so how can you know anything about theirs? The fact of the matter is, "Neddersassisch" in Platt can refer to the language, and I have seen it used that way more than a few times. Platt is more common, yes, but "Neddersassisch" occurs as well. You did change "sproak" to "taol", just see the history in your test-wp article about Zeeuws. Wikimedia is not a complete democracy. Consensus, not just a majority, is required. Currently there is no consensus. 15-3 is not consensus. 15-0, 15-1, or _maybe_ 20-2 is consensus. The intention is that a group cannot push their wish through when there is significant opposition. Currently, the opposition is still relatively significant. This is not counting the people who voted "support" for the existing dialect proposals but did not vote here, such as Gerard M. or the two other anon users. --Node ue 01:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, when you say "neddersassisch" in Germany that means "coming from Niedersachsen", but nobody will think of the language Plattdüütsch. Överklook is slimmer as tumpig (Plattdeutsches Sprichwort) Arbeo 16:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Arbeo, I'm talking about in Platt, not in German. If you think that nobody ever uses "neddersassisch" to refer to the language, you must not read about it very much as I have seen it occur quite a bit in literature from Germany. Specifically, Platt refers to Lowlands Saxon and East Low German; thus when one wishes to exclude East Low German they should use the term "Neddersassisch". --Node ue 01:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Moin Node ue, du snackst nich op Platt sünnern op Engelsch (un ik glööv dat du blauts dat richtig kunns). Over dat is ok egool. Ik hebb dat nich in't Internet leesen, sünnern twinnich joohr in Noorddüütschland leevt un düsse Spraak snackt. Worum glöövst du blauts jümmers dat du aans beter weet as de Lüüd de dor leeven wo de Sprook snackt woord, ok wenn du in'n heelen annern deel vunn de Welt leevt? Wenn de Lüüd seggt dat dat so löpen waard, worum mutt du denn noch jümmers seggen dat du liekers aans beter weet ? Blauts eene Froog noch: wat 'ne "Literatur" hest all leesen? Vertell mi mol de naam vunn düsse Bökers un denn künnt wi wieder snacken! Arbeo 23:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the first time somebody said something to me in Platt (or fernsehplatt, as in your case) expecting me to not understand. I will not dignify the first part of your message with a reply (up to ~liekers aans beter weet) because in my opinion, it is totally irrelevant, though I will make the comment that just because you have lived for a long time in a minority language area, does not mean you know every single word of it. Now, as to your question. http://dot.kde.org/1053201681/1053212548/1053212857/ Kenneth Christiansen says "Ik kom ut Denemark un ik snaak ok Neddersassisch. Het is 'n spraak un het is tou vergelyken mit Nedderlands." To be totally fair, he is Danish rather than German. You should also try searching the Lowlands-l archive. Quotes from it include "wi hebbt "klöven" orrer "opklöven" in Neddersassisch , wat nipp un nau datsülvige bedüden deit", "Man- ick weyt ouk ne recht, wat 'n opp Neddersassisch 'Karvdeer' seggen schull; mi dycht, wat dat nyms begriepen deyt", etc. Note that these are both from Germans. And as I noted before, "platt" is imprecise and includes East Low German as well as Lowlands Saxon, while "neddersassisch" is more precise, referring exclusively to Lowlands Saxon. --Node ue 21:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added a choice for the ISO code... and put it in bold... does anyone know any better ones? Serv
No unofficial ISO codes are acceptable because of the possibility of future conflicts with real ISO codes. So, it can't be a two or three letter code. Tuf-Kat 04:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tuf-Kat... I've e-mailed the ISO code "commission", asking the official code for Low Saxon spoken in the Netherlands. So I don't know if they'll reply but anyway, I've removed the other 2- and 3-letter codes and again added nds-nl. Serv
ISO codes are only for languages, they don't make any distinction at all about writting; so ther will never be a different code for "dutch" and "german" spellings of Low Saxon (there are languages with much bigger differences, like different scripts (eg; latin/arabic, etc) that just have to use the same iso code for all writting variants.
  • Support Low Saxon is clearly a distinct language. Its speakers in the Netherlands must be given the same treatment as Low Saxon speakers in Germany. Raetius 13:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Raetius, nobody is arguing that it's not distinct. The problems here are: 1) Whether its "dialects" are too distinct; and 2) Whether or not the Low Saxon of the Netherlands is a different language from the Low Saxon in Germany. Rather than provide detailed explanations or discussions about either, the unscrupulous proposers of this new Wikipedia choose instead to only answer "yes" or "no" and to tell the people asking these questions that their opinions are irrelevant, and have done so from the beginning. When you request a Wikipedia that is quite obviously divided directly along national borders, you should expect some opposition and be ready to answer people's questions in detail rather than blowing them off.--Node ue 09:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
VOTING ON ISO CODE: Please vote on which ISO-code to use for Nedersaksisch (NL).
a) nds-nl; b) qnds; c) ndsn; d) gem-nds; e) other... (voting closes Saterday, 22nd of October at ±18:00 (CEST)) - Servien 16:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
b and c are both unusable. Developers will not create new Wikipedias without using an ISO-sanctioned code. Since there is no such thing as a Dutch Low Saxon language, there is no ISO code nor Ethnologue code. Usually, when no ISO code exists, an Ethnologue code is used in the format "roa-rup" or "mis-ain". Realistically, though, the only option is "nds-nl" as "gem-nds" includes Germany, and the other options are not real ISO codes. --Node ue 21:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
each of b, c, d are not options. None of them is backed by RFC 3066 - no ISO 639 code AND not published by iana. (Both gem and nds are correct codes, yet inappropriate each, plus you cannot combine them in the way indicated, as per RFC 3066). That → leaves nds-NL which is both correctly built and apropriate.
• Btw. if nds-NL should be further subdivided by dialect, those ones being spoken most predominatly in areas coinciding closely enough with any of the Dutch provinces, could be coded as nds-NL-DR (Drente), nds-NL-FR (Friesland), nds-NL-GE <;small>(Gelderland), nds-NL-GR (Groningen), … etc. with the standard abbreviations commonly used in Netherlands since these have been registered with the ISO as regional subdivisions under country code NL. I cannot tell wether or not dialect use borders do match province borders.
• Note also that, with nds-DE, only nds-DE-HB (Bremen), and nds-DE-HH (Hamburg) are usable, because nds dialect borders elsewhere in Germany almost allways do not at all coincide with federal state borders; there is no point in using these two. German government unfortunately failed to register a set of region codes of finer granularity, though they have a suitable system (being used on car license plates) that is published, and well known to the public --Purodha Blissenbach 23:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PB, ISO/DIS 639-3 codes can be used, f.ex vel.
Since there isn't much to vote on anymore, the current nds-NL is the only choice, unless someone has a better code. Servien
As I noted before, "neddersaksisch" is imprecise. Just because you are the proposer does not give you licence to change the most important details of the request after people have already voted. How do you know that people who voted "support" will maybe support a Wikipedia called "Dutch Low Saxon" but not one called "Neddersaksisch", or vice-versa? No matter how you try to skew it, this proposal is for a Wikipedia for the Lowlands Saxon dialects of the Netherlands, and the title should reflect that directly in the title of the request, clearly and unambiguously.
Also, somebody keeps insisting on changing the number of oppose votes to "1 or 2" instead of 3. Now, there are 3 solid oppose votes: Chamadrae, Node, and the anonymous user. Please do not vandalise this page.
Nedersaksisch isn't imprecise, there are various ways of pronouncing them (I don't know of ones with "Nedder-" most are "Neder" or "Neer"... like you mentioned Twents uses Neersassies... this phenomenon occures in many Nds dialects, "leem'm" instead of "leven", most of the time it's written as "leev'n" or just "leven", the same goes for Twents Nî'e'-sâ'sisch there will probably be differences in Twents even, one writes it as Neersassisch other Neersassies yet another Nedersaksisch etc.
"Also, somebody keeps insisting on changing the number of oppose votes to "1 or 2" instead of 3. Now, there are 3 solid oppose votes: Chamadrae, Node, and the anonymous user. Please do not vandalise this page."
Are you insisting I changed the votes :o? (I only changed it from 1/2 to: oppose 1 or 2 like I did to all outstanding requests since it was noted as such). OFF TOPIC: 3 solid votes, Chamdarae doesn't oppose nor support he is quoted as saying: doesn't fully support.
I'd opt for nds-nl Arbeo 17:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TITLE: The title has to be changed anyway because "Netherlands Low Saxon" is English which is not an official language in the Netherlands. As explained above Nedersaksisch would do just fine, but just in case someone decides to change it back to the most incorrect form besides Dutch-Low Saxon. (In case there are too many different forms; of which I'm unaware at the moment, the Dutch spelling is used not the English since it's spoken in a Dutch speaking country) Servien

Chamdarae mentioned his should can be count as neutral, see: User talk:Servien. (recount let to 17 support [not including Chamdarae of course]) Servien 10:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CONCLUSION: seperate Nedersaksisch dialect wiki's have just as much/or even more oppose-votes and have lesser support-votes. De kreaotie van disse wiki duurt noe al ongeveer 'n halv jaor, hoelang motten de minsen nog waachten ±een jaor, meschien...? Meschien wel nog laanger, de procedure is so reer hier, 'n nye anvraog wurdt drek eaksepteerd en 'n anvraog van 'n halv jaor geleden staot nog steeds in de waacht... hmmm. Servien 15:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Uhh... remind me how long this request was around to garner 17 support votes? And how long has the Veluws req been around? These things don't happen instantly. I think also that Belgian Man may reconsider. --Node ue 14:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes you may... it's been around about 1 week longer than "Grunningers" etc, but Veluws has been around for a short time and has already had 3 against votes, 1 vote against for a very silly reason if you ask me, after excluding Sallaands Belgian Man didn't vote for the wiki either. Veluws has just as much "against votes" (which will only get more) than this wiki, only you and one anonymous user against this wiki, I don't think this is a good reason to not approve it. (besides who decides what goes through and what doesn't? If more people have moved this page to approved and only Node moves it back then obviously there is something wrong, shouldn't there be a proper "approval commission"?) Besides 2 votes, one voted for orthography this can be easily solved. You like to see dialect wikis, well the truth is you can't always have your way monsieur, c'est la vie, most people don't want dialect wikis (since this isn't a dialect atlas). Servien 11:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1) Veluws has 2 against votes. 2) "which will only get more" -- that's awfully pessimistic of you, you have no way of knowing that. 3) Two oppose votes vs. 17 support votes is a very good reason to not put it on the "approved requests" page. So far, only requests with 1 or fewer oppose votes have been moved there. For anything else, you'd need a much bigger ratio, like 30-2. And I don't apply a double standard -- I moved Riparian back here too, even though I support that request. 4) "Most people don't want dialect wikis" -- then why did 7 people vote in favour of a so-called "dialect wiki"?? --Node ue 22:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • 1) Actually 3 oppose votes (Raetius is against aswell), it's been around for a short time, this wiki has 2 and has been around for almost half a year. 2) It is pessimistic, but it's the truth, a Veluws wiki doesn't solve our initial problem and doesn't have much support. Besides you won't find many native speakers since it's a small dialect, and most people speak Dutch nowadays (check out "VELUWE" in your atlas), these people are mostly elderly people or Dutch neo-Veluws level 2/3 speakers. (someone mentioned Aachterhoeks in the stats, this is not even close to the Veluwe, Salland could be counted since Sallaand it's close. I'm curious to which website this is...) 3) It gets more and more with you, first it was 20 now it 30 next week 40, ammehoela! Most requests haven't even had so much support so I think this is a unique case 4) Because you're blocking this wiki, and most people are getting really annoyed with you just like I am getting now, when you know more about Nedersaksisch/Veluws let me know! Houje: Servien 12:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC) à propos... do anonymous users with 6 edits even count? :s[reply]
            • I agree that there is a consensus that this wiki should be created. There is 90% support if the anon voter is counted, which should be plenty. That's well more than is required for any other decision on the wiki. Tuf-Kat 19:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fnorp
Node has been praising dialect wikis to such an extent that he keeps on blocking the nds-NL wiki which most people actually want. Node doesn't seem to get that these languages are so different that it's just not possible to combine them it's like English and Middle English as said earlier, also a majority of its members are not very keen on the idea of Dutch members contributing to the German-nds wikipedia, as it is later again "Germanised" (but I'm not going to continue about this, it has been discussed!) On the nds-wiki it also states it's only for Low Saxon-Germany (and East-Germany as well which doesn't even fall under nds.) I think everything which should have been discussed has been discussed, and most agree that the wiki should be created soon, Arbeo has asked on the wikitech-l mailing list for its creation, Node keeps on removing the request from the approved page, this is nonsense, it's been approved and just confirms to me your immaturity. Servien 11:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(also see comments at: Veluws) Oppose dialect, no langage -220.149.85.57

You can't vote once it is approved (duh) the explaination is also incorrect Bart v.d. Heij 09:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1) There is no rule stating this. It is my contention that users should be able to vote on any request at any time before the creation of the Wikipedia. After its creation though, they'd have to start a proposal to lock it. 2) What is a language, and what is a dialect, is a subjective matter. Some people would say Asturian is a dialect of Spanish, others would say it's a separate language. Currently, the European charter for minority languages specifies "Low Saxon", spoken in both Germany and the Netherlands -- not as separate languages. --Node ue 22:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Node I can garanty you on behalf of me and Bart, that Low Saxon spoken in the Netherlands and Germany are definately not regarded as one and the same language by either its speakers or by linguists, this is due to the fact the both hang onto the major language in their own countries, thus Low Saxon in Germany is mostly heavily influenced by German, in the Netherlands it is influenced by Dutch, comparing these languages is like comparing Dutch and German, to you Dutch and German might also look alike but this is definately not the case for the speakers, most of the time Germans cannot understand Dutch eventhough they pick up some words, Dutch people tend to understand German easier because they've learned the language. The European charter also doesn't state Low Saxon is a minority language, it states the Low Saxon variaties as spoken in the Netherlands are a language, in Germany the language has no official status, the effect being that a German variaty which doesn't have an official status has a wikipedia and the Low Saxon language in the Netherlands, with an official status, doesn't. The German variaty and the Dutch variaty are mostly not mutually comprehensible with exeptions allong the border, the problem is that the main dialect used is way more inland "Hamburg" dialect I believe, trying to combine these variaties is like combining the Dutch and German wikipedia, sure we would have a lot of articles but the point of an encyclopedia is that the articles are actually understood, this is not the case with nds-wiki where the average Low Saxon user in the Netherlands will not understand 80% of its articles. The Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands are also relatively close to one another, I've personaly communicated with a Twents speakers in Veluws and there were no communication problems at all. Please explain to me why you're so against this wiki, you have not yet come up with a point which is an actual problem, I know you like the dialect wikis but as you've seen with the requests for the seperate dialects, most other users do not. Groetnis: Servien 16:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1) Well, if they're regarded as separate languages, what are they called? I could only find references to "Lowlands Saxon", "Low Saxon", referring to both countries. Even searching common German and Dutch words (Plattdeutsch, Niedersachsisch, Nedersaksisch...), all of the websites said it was _a language_ (not two languages) spoken in Germany and the Netherlands.
2) Comparing your so-called "dutch low saxon" with so-called "german low saxon" is most definitely not like comparing German with Dutch. There are some very minor differences, namely spelling and influence (especially in vocabulary) from German or Dutch, but this is largely limited to the technical domain.
3) Dutch and German don't look the same to me. Do French and Spanish look the same to you? There are some very obvious differences between the two, and this is compounded by the fact that as an educated speaker of English, I can accurately guess the meanings of perhaps 30% of Dutch and German vocabulary. Dutch and German are obviously quite different languages -- "ik" in Dutch, "ich" in German; "dag" = "tag", and that's only the beginning, there are lots more. But there are no similar differences between "Dutch Low Saxon" and "German Low Saxon" -- "ik" = "ik". There are no grammatical or morphological differences, only differences in spelling and to a small degree in vocabulary aswell.
4) I think you'd better check again. Regardless of whether or not a language is recognised by a country, it can be recognised at the level of Europe.
5) You claim that having, say, Hamboergsch and Gronings in the same Wikipedia is like combining Dutch and German. That's a ridiculous claim. There are, according to nearly all sources I can find, 4 main dialect groups of LS: Northern LS, Westphalian, Eastphalian, and Schleswigian. Northern LS is shared between Hamburg and much of the rest of N. Germany, and the Netherlands. Can you give me a single isogloss that goes along the national border?
6) If you can't understand "German Low Saxon", you're not trying at all. Every single day, speakers of LS from both countries exchange e-mails in the language on lowlands-l with little difficulty. Other than some spelling differences, and "et" and "en" vs "de" and "und", there aren't really any huge differences. This point is PROVEN by the fact that you posted a message to the talkpage of nds.wiki in "Dutch Low Saxon", which was understood perfectly by the Germans, who responded with messages in "German Low Saxon", which was understood perfectly by you (and ultimately led to this request). You claiming that they can't be understood is an outright lie.
7) I've come up with quite a few reasons why this WP should not be created. You have been rude from the very beginning, and have ignored or rebuked my attempts at compromise. --Node ue 00:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shortly... they're called Plattdüütsch and Nedersaksisch, under Dutch influence sometimes called Nedersachsisch, secondly read your charter all your info is in there. Thirdly, as an expert and native speaker you should know all about the language haah, you make me laugh, you're so funny *NOT*! Fourth, you better check your sources again, on the Dutch and German wiki they are are divided by Dutch and German variaties, there might be four dialect groups which they've been divided in in the year 1601, but hey what do you know it's 2005! May be the word "ik" is the same but that's about it, I've talked to mit-Nedersaksen in NL and they see the wiki the same way we Dutch do, like a foreign language which is definately not own, most don't even understand the introduction on the main page. You know I'm get really gatvol of your stupid unmeaningful comments, every day... hmm well you have to speak German to understand, mine isn't that good, monsieur excuse me, but I'm not going to study another language to communicate in my own, think of it you'll have to speak French first to be able to read in English! Secondly when I wrote my comments everyone told me they did not understand a word I said, Dutch users get this more often the once (most likely Veluws, Drents, Sallands, Stellingwerfs, Zuid-Gelders, Overijssels, Achterhoeks en gao so mer deur!) Everytime I read your comments I read "blablabla" no new stuff, jy haolt ouwe koeien uut de sloot. Please get a life and learn some Veluws or Drents or whatever. Besides aren't people only allowed to vote when they're 18?! Servien 08:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this before. 1) Any sites or books talking about either "Plattdüütsch" or "Nedersaksisch" say that this language is spoken in 2 countries. Many German sources call it "Nedersaksisch" or "Nedersassisch", especially books. In Hochdeutsch, it's sometimes called "Niedersächsisch". 2) Why don't you read the charter? 3) What? 4) Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source even by itself. I used a number of books, not Wikipedia, including the widely praised Das neue Duden-Lexikon which was published in 1999. 5) Well, you want I should make an entire swadesh list? The only real difference is orthography. For example, the GLS "vör" is written "veur" in DLS, "hööft" -> "heufd", "nedersaksisch"/"nedersassisch" -> "nedersaksisch", "köninkriek" -> "keuninkryk", "tesaom'n" -> "tesaamen", "schriefwiese" -> "schryvwyse". 6) I'm tired of your personal attacks. If you want to tell me you don't like what I have to say, or you think I don't know what I'm talking about, go ahead and say it. But don't call me names. --Node ue 21:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we have been over this and I'm going to ignore your nonsense comments from now on, first of all it's not called Nedersaksisch anywhere in Germany, second of all please leave the judging over to people who have knowledge about this (no not your book-knowledge, but REAL LIFE)! ...again CHARTER, it's an official language Plattduutsch isn't.
1) I have given you proof that it is in fact called Nedersaksisch in Germany, which you have all but ignored. Just because you read somewhere that "It's called Plattdüütsch in Germany" doesn't mean that's 100% true. "Plattdüütsch" (sometimes shortened to "platt") refers to LS + "East Low German", and is definitely the predominant name in Germany. There are plenty of websites (including lowlands-l.net) written in "GLS" which call it "Nedersaksisch" or "Nedersassisch". 2) The only people who have voted here who have "real knowledge" about it are yourself and Bart van der Heij, who I actually think might be your sockpuppet. 3) The charter doesn't just mention official languages; besides LS in Germany has certain areas where it is given treatment as a minority language.


"vör" is written "veur" in DLS, "hööft" -> "heufd", "PLATTDUUTSCH"/"nedersassisch" (dutchism) -> "Nedersaksisch" (capital), "köninkriek" -> "keuninkryk", "tesaom'n" -> "SAOMEN", "schriefwiese" -> "schryvwyse". 6) I'm tired of your personal attacks.

Yes that is correct, these are a FEW words, but you can't build on this, just except it from a native speaker I don't understand **** from that socalled wikipedia, this is not the intention of a wiki, that is why the wiki has so little Dutch people in its community!! Ik wur' so esteurd van al die onsinnige troep die'j loopt rond te verspreiden, jy kump nie ees uut Europa en jy dink drek da'j alles van onse taol en kultuur en alles afweet! I have never called you names, which I should but I don't! I'm sure you're a nice person (when you're asleep?) but your VERY annoying, I'm not the only one who seems to think that! Groetnis van 'n Nederlaandse gebruker die gien sin heet um op 'n Duutse wikipedie syn bydraogen te leveren an iets waor niemand wat an heet, umdat sy der gien ene hol van begrypen. Servien 09:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, why not give a few examples of words that are truly different? If you don't understand "****", there are other solutions to that problem besides making a new Wiki -- two pages for each topic, a spelling converter, using an in-between spelling... the list goes on. No other WP was created just because somebody spells a few words differently. And let's see, "Ik wurrt zo estörrd vun al die onzinnige trup die'j loopt rond te verspreiden, de kump nie ees uut Europa en de dink drek da'j alles vun onze spraak un kultur un alles afweet!", and then "Grütens vun 'n Nedderlandsche gebrüker die gien zin heet um op 'n Düütsche Wikipedia sien biedraagn te leveren an its waar nimand wat an heet, umdat sie der gin ene hol vun begriepen"... don't think I don't understand you sörpit. --Node ue 10:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

strong support It looks like there is consensus that this wikipedia should be created, if I am not mistaken,only one person is very actively trying to block it. The NL-nedersaksische variants (I use the dutch spelling) are influenced by dutch spelling and vocabulary, and the DE-Platt variants are influenced by the German spelling and vocabulary, enough reason for a separate nds-nl wikipedia, IMHO. If a certain variant, like Gronings or Veluws, will be over-represented in the nds-nl wikipedia, we could split it off at a later point if desired. Hence strong support for an nds-nl wikipedia. Flyingbird 13:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • support As a native Twents speaker, I think there should be an NDS-NL Wikipedia covering all Dutch Low Saxon dialects at a minimum. I can understand the current Plattdüütsche Wikipedia, but that is only a consequence of having German in high school. It has been written over here that German Low Saxon and Dutch Low-Saxon are comparable (people from Hamburg able to understand people from Groningen and vice versa). This is true, although there may always be some differences which could led to understanding problems. The biggest issue however, is that Wikipedia is mainly a WRITTEN medium, not a SPOKEN one. The Dutch Low Saxon has been written for centuries with help of grammar and spelling normally used for the Dutch language, leading to big differences between written Dutch and German Low Saxon. Twents for example has been proven to resemble closer to Middle Dutch than Middle Low German. There are even quite some differences between for example Twents and Veluws, mainly in spelling, but not as big as between the Dutch and German Low Saxon. Creating a NDS-NL Wikipedia would be a good start to satisfy all native speakers of Dutch Low Saxon dialects. Tubantia 13:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newsflash: the article Node ue was so proud of, being about the only easily understandable article for Dutch users Noord-Veluws has been changed to Plattdüütsch, it is that I wrote it myself but otherwise wouldn't be able to understand most likely.)

Did you know that in some parts of the Netherlands, they call their dialect "Plat" or "Platduits"?? Anyhow that interesting factoid aside, please see this page. Sure, it was changed to German spellingg, but nobody altered the grammar. Word order is identical, and everything. Just words were respelled. You were trying to say that these languages have different words and grammar... if that's the case, why didn't they make more changes than just spelling??????????? --Node ue 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Developers may judge the differences for themselves, see: Wordlist in "Netherlands Low Saxon" dialect, Gronings and Corresponding wordlist in "German Low Saxon" dialect, Hamborgsch.

This list has been composed by a acquaintance of mine to show the few resemblances the languages all together have. As one can see most words are the same in all languages, then lets combine Dutch, Low Saxon, German and English and make it one wikipedia. Ooit eheurd van et woord "absurd"?
Not in English, they're not the same. Nor in German nor Dutch. --Node ue 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Dutch_Low_Saxon&oldid=19957355"