Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Old Church Slavonic
Old Church Slavonic WikipediaEdit
|←main page||Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Old Church Slavonic)|
|Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.|
- listed in en:ISO 639-1
- An en:extinct language.
- Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius wrote some books in this language.
- ISO 639 code "cu" contain also en:Church Slavonic language, a en:liturgical language.
- Script issues, Cyrillic vs Glagolitic
- Why an issues, the two script (and the two language) would be allowed, isn't it ? (9 feb 2005)
- If you disallow more than one script, subomains would be cu-Glag, cu-Cyrs, cu-Cyrl. (16 Mar 2005)
- This Wikipedia should be Cyrillic, I think. (16 July 2005)
- We can have each article written twice: in Glagolitic and Cyrillic script (e.g. in Gothic Wikipedia there are pages written using Gothic alphabet and their Latin transliterations), with redirects of these 2 variants to each other... But it would be perfect to do as the Chinese Wikipedians did: they have options allowing to display both traditional and simplified hieroglyphs. -- Alexander Gerashchenko 08:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- This idea is quite less moribund than the Slovio Wikipedia and I am sure you can find more supporters for it. If you want Glagolitic script, then write a converting program. I'm just convinced Cyrillic is far more practical: it is read by all of the potential users and supported by the simplest Unicode versions, unlike Glagolitic. Caesarion 17:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- In Russia it is learned in church schools, so many clericals can speak it.--Nxx 18:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- In Serbia too. --Ђорђе Д. Божовић 01:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support Church Slavonic Wikipedia really should exist - if even Anglo-Saxon and Gothic ones do! -- Alexander Gerashchenko 08:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support nl:Boudewijn Idema, 13:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Serbian wikipedia has special script to convert content between various scripts, so using glagolic alongside with cyrillic shouldn't be a problem. Kneiphof 16:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support Keeno 13:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Again, etymologically important and also important as a liturgical language, so definitely.
- Support --Ted-m 14:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support — Sergej Lazarev 11:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Maxim Razin 07:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --TheFEARgod 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Support -- 184.108.40.206 19:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Nxx 04:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)