Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Kölsch

Kölsche WikipediaEdit

main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Kölsch)
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 02:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Kölsch (ksh [ISO/DIS 639-3])
  • Editing community: —
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: —
  • External links:
  • (opposing Wrede's spelling, promoting their own.)
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

Some users in the Ripuarian Wikipedia want a Kölsch only Wikipedia, following the specific spelling as published by Adam Wrede.



  1. Oppose Cannot find "ksh" or "koelsch" in the ISO 639 list. And what I said already for "Pfälzisch" applies here, too -- 21:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:RokerHRO)
  2. Oppose This is not the right place for the spelling discussion on ksh. Nobody acting here really wants this second wiki, they only want their favorite spelling on the existing ksh wiki. --::Slomox:: >< 14:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


  1. Neutral --Purodha Blissenbach 22:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


What does "nach Adam Wrede" mean?Cameron Nedland 03:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A specific spelling of Kölsch. (There are several, Wrede's is a bit aniquated and not usually used today, but has a high degree of overlap, and good understandibility for those educated in German writing and ethymology) --Purodha Blissenbach 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a misunderstanding. A vote in the Ripuarian wikipedia has shown that a majority of users from different ripuarian dialects wants to have a new interface in a standardized orthography as documented by the linguist Adam Wrede from Cologne. Purodha is the translator of the interface which is currently in use and which was never approved by the community. He was the only user to oppose the vote for a standardized interface (which would replace his interface). He claimed that this group of users wanted to accept only Kölsch (Cologne dialect) and no other Ripuarian dialects in the Ripuarian wikipedia, and that this would eventually lead to elimination of other Ripuarian dialects. However, this is not the case, since a number of users asking for a standardized interface speaks local Ripuarian dialects quite different from Kölsch. Apart from Purodha, nobody wants a new Ripuarian Wikipedia. I think this request can be deleted. Dbach 19:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC) (ksh:User:Düüvelskääl)

Almost all that is said before is wrong or biased. A minority of 4 or fife (of 119 registered users) followed an unclear move to have certain parts of the Ripuarian Wikipedia rewritten to Kölsch (which is only one of various Ripuarian dialects, certainly the one having the most speakers, estimated 1/4 or 1/5 of the total Ripuarian Speakers) Likely these users have little average technical knowledge, and as recent discussions showed, did not even know, what they were talking on (Wikimedia Interface, Lemmas/Page titles, Navigational templates, Links in articles, Article contents) Of course it is possible and was never planned or communicated otherwise by eveyone involved in these technical matters, to have the Wikimedia interface in as many Ripuarian dialects and variants as there are competent volunteers who type the required texts. One user insists in specialcasing Kölsch in several ways (in a very specfic spelling, too, of Wrede of the 1930s-1950s, see above, which is only about 50% identical with that commonly used today in most other Kölsch publications) and he constantly renamed existing Articles according to what he thinks, and rewrites parts of articles, eliminating other spelling or dialectal variants, to a high percentage that of anonymous (IP) users. As an administrator − although a native Kölsch speaker myself − I see it as necessary to keep such attemps to a minimum and usually revert them, since we have been entrusted with an all dialect Ripuarian Wikipedia, not Kölsch only in a specific spelling variant. I am cooperating in software development to better support multiple dialects and spelling variants, and I am confident that in some foreseeable time (2-5 years) we shall have an on-the-fly translator between dialects and spelling variants of most Ripuarian similar to the software that can output both tranditional and simplified chinese fom common data - provided we can collect enough varieties of Ripuarian in our Wikipedia at all. Currently said user seems not supportive towards that goal, up to now he has been rather eliminating variants. But we are in discussions, and that behaviour is hopefully going to change. --Purodha Blissenbach 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As the only other Admin besides Purodha I have to add that Purodha is the only user expressing this view, while all other users who have ever expressed a view on that topic were not satisfied with the way this wikipedia is currently working. I must also add that, while I am not Kölsch and do not support a Kölsch wikipedia, Purodha in fact is Kölsch and has even arranged the ksh abbreviation for the ripuarian wikipedia, although other non-Kölsch users - including me - opposed this Kölsch dominance. Purodhas move for the non-Kölsch dialects is therefore an obvious strategy to draw attention from the issue of his non-approved interface. Dbach 18:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"What does "nach Adam Wrede" mean?"
The "Adam Wrede" is an official dictionary of the Cologne language.

"A minority of 4 or fife (of 119 registered users) followed an unclear move ..."
That's a lie. A great majority voted in summer to use the Adam-Wrede-Spelling. Our problem, we have 119 registered users, but only 6 regular writers and two Admins with a different opinion. Conclusion: We need a third Admin to have an Admin-majority. --Jüppsche 01:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The Message-Interface for the ripuarian version of Wikipedia [1], which is used for the moment, was invented by Purodha Blissenbach. His rules of spelling ripuarian expressions isn't representative for ripuarian dialects. This has to be changed. A new Interface has been constructed on the basis of modern ripuarian literature (for example: the ripuarian version of Asterix). The spelling of the new Message-Interface is based on well documented rules. Two sources have been used: the Akademie för uns kölsche Sproch and the books of Adam Wrede. For more Information about the sources look at the header-lines of the Interface. Nobody wants a limitation concerning the spelling of articles. But for the navigation (Message-Interface, categories, templates, and so on) a standard has to be found, so that not only one user a few users are able to follow the spelling. We need some testing of this new Interface.--Metacaesius 16:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
;Clarification 1: There is no "official" Kölsch, nor a "Kölsch Office" of any kind, and who claims otherwise, only ridicules himself. Kölsch is democratically spoken and spelt in various ways by various people, and publishers, over the time. There are about 4 general trends of spelling and as many deviations as writers.
;Clarification 2: In the Test Wikipedia for Ripuarian languages, we tried to develop a common spelling for all Ripuarian languages, with the intent to reflect, and document, the different pronounciations of the varyous dialects as precisely as possible - spelling different sound preferrably different. A similar approach is used scientifically in a large project spanning more than only the Ripuarian dialects, their notation is called "Rheinische Dokumenta" but unfortunately not able to reflect stress & tonal accents. Since it's not in Unicode, we cannot presently use it.
;Clarificaton 3: The more popular spellings systems use a quite different appoach, in trying use identical, either very German-like, or very Dutch-like, spellings for possibly many dialects alike, and consequentially pronounce identically spelt words differently in different dialects and contexts. Thus they're not very helpful to document dialect differenciations. Other drawbacks: they're hard to learn for non-German, or non-Dutch educated persons, respectively, and neither have a sufficient number of letters, or letter combinations, to address all Ripuarian sounds adequately.
;Opinion 4: I feel like having unconsciously stepped on a foot of my fellow admin at some time, or something the like. ...
;Clarification 5: Purodha ... arranged the ksh abbreviation for the ripuarian wikipedia, ... ist wrong. He only suggested it (among several others) as a temporary solution after the ISO 639 advisory board declined a code for the Ripuarian language group before ISO 639-3 were final. See gray box under Language Code and Domain: here. The decision to use this code was made by others.
;Clarification 6: I contributed the vast majority of the 1st Kölsch translation of Mediawiki messages - it was apparently approved by the development team and and included in the svn repository. It uses the spelling mentioned in Clarification 2, above.
I support and promote equally well the current development of the 2nd Ripuarian variant (using a different spelling, a blend of two renownd publications, and others, following the approach mentioned in Clarification 3, above, being collected by User:Metacaesius), and
I shall equally well support and promote every other translation of the Mediawiki message base to come, regardless of their dialect, or spelling, or contributor(s).
;Opinion 7: Imho in a debate, it is certainly acceptable to ask contributors to quickly state their current opinions about certain ideas or proposals, simplified to "Yes/No, I do (not) like it". You can do so even while propositions are in flow, invalid or impractical options, misinformation, etc. have not yet been sorted out. You cannot, hover, after few days of unsolved controversy, declare an earlier such opinion poll a voting, the results of which were binding (and btw. get the counts wrong) — Even worse: with participants being a carefully selected group of known supporters of a specific position, who were individually invited into the discussion, while other users were not, making such a claim is abusive, in my opinion.
;Clarification 8: Having an n+1th admin does not at all alter majorities.
;Hint 9: Given an argument chain like this: There need to be rules. (overly broad) For ...(part of the Wikipedia)... a standard has to be found. (Really? Is not using a language of the Riuarian group enough? Which standard?) Users are to be able to follow the spelling! (1: Bad luck. No matter which you choose, some will be unable to comprehend it (as is with spoken Language in the Ripuarian group), 2: Do they really need to? By far not always indeed. 3: THE spelling? Except for Article content which may actually exist in only one Dialect+Spelling, Users usually have several options, IF we permit them or provide them) We need to follow a (well) documented spelling. (Why? Do we? For the vast majority of smaller Ripuarian variants, such Documentation is not known to us, not even likely to exist, which leaves us with a radically limited choice of dialects) Thus we need to follow the most comprehensive documentation of Ripuarian spelling, which is ... (Among the various Ripuarian varieties, only one language is most comprehenively documented: Kölsch) Hence this request for a new language Wikipedia. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:51, 1 December 2006 til 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)