Hi,
(I´m not proficient in english language)
Wikipedia new language request. There are 182.1 million people in Brazil who use Brazilian Portuguese as their main language. Brazilian Portuguese IS NOT the same as Portuguese (domain pt.wikipedia.org) and it still isn't on the list (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Complete_list_of_language_wikis_available)
This question had been discussed over and over again on pt.wikipedia.org and every time we have concluded that the best way is to stay together.
And, yes, I´m from Brazil and my first language is brazilian portuguese.
Patrick (patrick @ pt.wikipédia) (patrick-br @ meta.wikipedia) Caruaru, PE (Brazil)
_________________________________________________________________________________ Quer mais velocidade? Só com o acesso Aditivado iG, a velocidade que você quer na hora que você precisa. Clique aqui: http://www.acessoaditivado.ig.com.br
Allan Patrick Medeiros Lucas wrote:
This question had been discussed over and over again on pt.wikipedia.org and every time we have concluded that the best way is to stay together. And, yes, I´m from Brazil and my first language is brazilian portuguese.
That would be my hope, so I'm glad to hear that. But in every case, this should be for the native speakers of variants of languages to decide, and it *should* be decided from a perspective of love and harmony and rationality (mutual intelligibility being key) as opposed to for nationalistic reasons. It *can* *still* be the case that somewhat close languages should split if the overall impact is positive.
--Jimbo
That would be my hope, so I'm glad to hear that. But in every case, this should be for the native speakers of variants of languages to decide, and it *should* be decided from a perspective of love and harmony and rationality (mutual intelligibility being key) as opposed to for nationalistic reasons. It *can* *still* be the case that somewhat close languages should split if the overall impact is positive.
As for that, some time ago I noticed that we have Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, and Serbo-Croatian wikis. I'm sure this topic must have been debated somewhere, but nobody I've asked has been able to illuminate me as to the rationale for this decision. Can anyone here?
--Jimbo
Austin Hair wrote:
As for that, some time ago I noticed that we have Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, and Serbo-Croatian wikis. I'm sure this topic must have been debated somewhere, but nobody I've asked has been able to illuminate me as to the rationale for this decision. Can anyone here?
I do not know the rationale, either. I think it is something that we should discuss.
One of the obvious goals of wikipedia, big picture, is to promote intelligent discourse in the interest of world harmony. We should be very careful, of course, to respect that if there are significant language differences that require separate wikis, then separate wikis are required.
But we should be very skeptical of proposed splits that might be driven more by political/ethnic trouble, etc.
I would love to learn more about the current situation, and to reach out to these wikipedia communities to find out if they would like to change things.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Austin Hair wrote:
As for that, some time ago I noticed that we have Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, and Serbo-Croatian wikis. I'm sure this topic must have been debated somewhere, but nobody I've asked has been able to illuminate me as to the rationale for this decision. Can anyone here?
I do not know the rationale, either. I think it is something that we should discuss.
As far as I know we've had sr and hr wikis since the earliest days. bs was eventually added on request, and the abandoned sh wiki was eventually closed to reduce redundancy.
Note that the ISO 639 code 'sh' for Serbo-Croatian was officially withdrawn on February 18, 2000. http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/codechanges.html
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Austin Hair wrote:
As for that, some time ago I noticed that we have Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, and Serbo-Croatian wikis. I'm sure this topic must have been debated somewhere, but nobody I've asked has been able to illuminate me as to the rationale for this decision. Can anyone here?
I do not know the rationale, either. I think it is something that we should discuss.
One of the obvious goals of wikipedia, big picture, is to promote intelligent discourse in the interest of world harmony. We should be very careful, of course, to respect that if there are significant language differences that require separate wikis, then separate wikis are required.
But we should be very skeptical of proposed splits that might be driven more by political/ethnic trouble, etc.
I would love to learn more about the current situation, and to reach out to these wikipedia communities to find out if they would like to change things.
IIRC there was no big discussion about it. It was the one thing what the people on all sides there wanted, and they got it, That's the part of the world that gave us the term "balkanization". If the issue were to come up now we might try harder to keep them together. It is interesting to note that the last substantive edit on the Serbo-Croation wiki on June 27 was at "Anarhizam" :-)
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org