Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Romagnolo
|←main page||Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Romagnolo)|
|Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.|
- Number of speakers: 1 MIlLION
- Locations spoken: Main towns: Ravenna (150,000 people), Rimini (135,000), Forlì (115,000), Cesena (95,000) and all the Romagna region.
- Very sorry, this is my first oppose. There exixts an (already created) Emilian-Romagnol wikipedia, with Romagnol contributors too. Cisalpin tongues need a unification-like habit rather than a division one. So I suggest Romagnol comtributors to join Emilian-Romagnol wikipedia. (I hope there will be a Cisalpin wikipedia in a long term future, but this is another matter). Cheers, --clamengh 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Subjects like unity vs. division are political matters. Please, this is not a political forum.
- Not so obvious; and please consider that we have an idea about what is wikimedia.--clamengh 14:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like you to answer to these linguistic and historical questions:
1) Do you know that a dictionary Emilian-Romagnolo - Italiano never existed? Can you tell me why?
2) If you digit the word "romagnolo" in Opac  you will find more than 800 books. If you digit "emilian-romagnolo" you will find NOTHING. Can you tell me why?
3) HISTORY. Emilia-Romagna were born:
a) In 1861, when Italy were unified; b) In 1948, together with the current Constitution; c) During the Middle Age;
You don't know the answer? I can help you: if you go to this site, , you will find a list entitled "Dialetti emiliano-romagnoli":
- Dialetto ferrarese;
- Dialetto reggiano;
- Dialetto romagnolo.
Do you agree that "emiliano-romagnoli" is only a geographic name?
So, Emilia-Romagna is a region (created in 1948) where many dialects are spoken: bolognese, reggiano, romagnolo, ecc., all of them were born in the Middle Age. That's why emilian-romagnolo as a dialect NEVER EXISTED IN HISTORY!
I'm trying to tell you that historically and culturally Emilia and Romagna were born lots of centuries before the creation of the Region. The feeling of being "romagnolo" and "emiliano" is VERY CLEAR to anyone who is born in these two lands.
If you want to know more, please go to .
As soon as "rmg.wikipedia.org" will be created, things will be much more clear: "eml.wikipedia.org" for all dialects from Emilia, and "rmg.wikipedia.org" will be good for Romagnolo.
Sentruper 13 October 2006
- Thank you for being so kind. I mean linguistic unity of course, not any kind of politics. See G.Hull: The linguistic untiy of Northern Italy and Rhaetia. This includes Emily and Romagna. Cheers, Claudi--188.8.131.52 18:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
--clamengh 19:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- [temporarily removed inasmuch as premature]
- Support - I don't support the template in all pages to diversify the dialects on eml.wikipedia.org! +1 for this wiki. Bye --Giancy @ Meta 12:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC) - Wikipedia is divided by LANGUAGES, not by COUNTRY!!
- Support Sentruper says right. Romagnolo is a language quite different to emiliano, not very intelligible with it. Ottaviano 16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support As Emiliano and Romagnolo are two different languages, the Emilian-Romagnolo Wikipedia is just confusing. A two-language Wikipedia has never been seen. EliaR 16 October 2006
- Support Emiliano is different from Romagnolo Helios89 21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Each language reflects its own culture and country. So, if I can agree that for foregein people Romagnolo is very similar to Bolognese or other Emilian languages from a phonetic point of view, I think that the background history of Dialetto Romagnolo is big enough to justify a separated wiki-version. And if some oppose persist, I can tell him in every moment jus a bit of this great history... Sgniafuz!!! --Nadir 13:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Romagna is a country, "rùmagnol" its language. --Mirco77 17:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Romagnolo is a language different from emiliano. --Axx 21:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Romagnolo is a language like the Emiliano; emiliano romagnolo doesn't exixt. --Aere 17:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Emiliano-Romagnolo language? It's a joke? It's like if I say Piedmontese-Ligurian language, or French-German language! Emilian language is the language of Emilia and a province in Tuscany, Romagnolo language is the language of Romagna and some pieces of Marche. And they're very different. --Ebano 20:03, 7 November 2006
- Support a i ò magari capì l'ultma fras!
- Oppose -- The last sentence is false. Emilian-Romagnol is used in the Romance Philologie, instead Piedmontese-Ligurian is not used, but we always find only Piedmontese or only Ligurian. -- Arcobalengo 7 November 2006
- Oppose It would duplicate an existing and recently created project: moreover its creation would imply that:
- Emilian Romagnol wikipedia should be closed (supporters of this wikipedia could oppose Emilian or Romagnol wikipedias separately)
- an Emilian wikipedia should be requested ab ibitio.
Is it worthwile?--Bz.ti.ch 07:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, I hadn't noticed this fact. It is quite correct: it is a problem. At present I am afraid I would oppose even a separate Emilian wikipedia. Regardless of this fact, EML wikipedia couldn't act in a different way from the one in which it gained consensus. It would be posh this request to be withdrawn. Thank you--clamengh 14:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose My feeling is that the best thing to do is to unite and not to split, why Romagnolo cannot be developed within Emiliano-Romagnolo? Given the differences, those cannot be accomodated within the existing framework? I feel this is the old "campanile" way of thinking of most dwellers of the Italian peninsula, whereas even two towns few kms apart have different languages (this may happen, of course, but not as often as it is claimed).--Carmine Colacino 10:44, 18 October 2006
- Oppose --Nick1915 11:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- NO VOTE -- Well, according to ISO 639-3, Romagnolo isn't a language, so it shouldn't exists a Romagnola Wikipedia. This is just for standardization because IN FACT Romagnolo is very different from Emiliano, but this is an ISO problem: they should edit their references... - MisterX 18:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - An Emilian-Romagnol Wikipedia already exists. -- Laurin 09:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -The usual political trick of splitting a language into an infinite number of parts to kill it. A political and unfair move. To be rejected as such.--Belinzona 09:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - My main issue is: has Wikipedia moved away from the ISO standard in establishing whether something is a language or not. Have we decided to throw out the only independent arbiter that we have in these matters? pippudoz - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Sabine 11:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Of course, when on the Emilian-Romagnol Wikipedia the Romagnol variety will have thousands articles, I will change my opinion. -- Aprilx 17:15, 19-10-2006 (UTC)
- Oppose . Emilian-Romagnol is a group of closely related dialects stretching from (the partly Lombard) Piacentino to (the Northern but a bit less Northern than others) Riminese. Saying that Romagnol (that is the dialects spoken in the provinces of Ravenna, Forlì-Cesena and Rimini) isn't mutually intelligible with Emilian (i.e. the dialects spoken in the provinces of Piacenza, Parma, Reggio, Modena, Bologna and Ferrara) is completely false and doesn't take into account the fact that the dialects spoken in the plain are often more obviously related to each other than the dialects of the main cities are to those of the respective mountainous areas (e.g. provinces of Modena and Reggio). If we wanted to show this fact there should be a multiplication of Wikipedias which doesn't seem desirable to me, for two reasons: 1) the current Emilian-Romagnol Wikipedia doesn't possibly reflect Romagnol identity and self-consciousness, but it is much fairer to the real linguistic facts, which are made of variety in a unity having two names 2) I don't see how these two (or more?) different Wikipedias could be reasonably developed: the existing Bolognese page is full with mistakes showing insufficient knowledge of the language (dialect) used; furthermore, the indigenous name of Romagnol is neither Rumâgnol */ru'maaNol/ nor rùmagnol */'rumaNol/ (!), but rumagnôl /ruma'Noel/ (please compare http://www.racine.ra.it/argaza/). This incapability of spelling Romagnol correctly shown by the defenders of a Romagnol Wikipedia is even more appalling if you consider that there exists an almost completely unified Romagnol orthography (compare the site above), even if sometimes local differences make it a little bit harder to apply.--Nad2006 16:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with what said by Danvit2006. Please let's cooperate together and eventually talk about a split if and when the project grows up. --Biopresto 08:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I oppose to the banner on top!! .
Please, take care of orthography: Emilian, not Emiliain. Maybe you are English mother tongue speaker.
First, I'd like to know who wrote it, and 2) I'd like to know the reason why this should happen.
Why eml.wikipedia.org should have to be closed? "eml" is for Emilia, instead the abbreviation of Emilia-Romagna is "emr" everybody knows that. So, both wiki could live.
If you take a look to the home page you'll read "Ai én 47 paagin in emigliàn e rumagnòl" (There are 47 pages in Emiliano and in Romagnolo).
That's because no healthy people could argue, for whatever reason, the Emilian-romagnol exists.
So, I gently suggest to the author of this banner to change his mind.
Please, let's face reality: we are talking about something (Emilian-Romagnolo) that never existed in history.
Sentruper 19 october 2006
- More collaboration, please. All together in EML, you would have more chance to survive as a wikipedia; to see the author of any edit of any page, simply check its history. But, please stop personal attacks on other contributors: we are all wealthy, simply there exist different points of view. Remember that you can edit this page as well. About why eml cannot be only Emilian, please see the explications by Bz.ti.ch above: he/she is right. Good luck --clamengh 17:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
1) the current Emilian-Romagnol Wikipedia doesn't possibly reflect Romagnol identity and self-consciousness, but it is much fairer to the real linguistic facts, - Bz.ti.ch
For the sake of truth: eml is for Emilia and rmg is for Romagna. The abbreviation of Emilia-Romagna is emr.
Eml.wiki is discriminatory against people from Romagna: it means that Romagna is an appendix of Emilia. No wikipedians from Romagna will never accept this.
OK, let's collaborate, for fixing the error made with the creation of eml.wikipedia.
This wiki was created confusing the issue of Emilia-Romagna, that is simply one of 20 Regions of Italy.
If only 1 wiki can survive, let's close EML and open EMR.Wikipedia and all of us will live in joy and happiness. :-) Sentruper 20 october 2006
- Sorry but eml stands for Emiliano-Romagnolo (ISO 639-3) and not for Emilia (Emilia is a geographical region in Italy as much as I know and not a language) - that does not mean that this is considered to be one language, but simply that ISO chose to attribute eml as a code (if iso chose number codes, well than we whould have probably had something like 78756). It is clear that these three letters have been chosen because they are easy to combine with the words itself when you need to remember them working on languages. Really it could be any code. It is a linguistic code and nothing else - no discrimination at all. Btw. rmg is the code for Traveller Norvegian (have to read up on that language ... thanks for pointing me to it) so it cannot stand for Romagnolo. The Emiliano-Romagnolo wikipedia already takes into count that there are differences and opens with a main page that leads to the various languages included in the ISO 639-3 code.
- Besides that you should also consider that you have just three people who want to contribute - out of these three probably only one will remain a continuous contributor. Working together helps to go through these periods when you are working all on your own on a language and having the possibility to communicate on one only wiki with people who work on articles in similar languages normally is a huge advantage. If you want to give your language the chance it deserves, you should co-operate instead of separate. You also should take this issue further and request separate ISO-639-3 codes by providing the necessary documentation. Co-operating on the eml wikipedia will have the following effects:
- You are enough people who can deal with vandals (that can become quite time consuming ... in particular on small wikipedias)
- You grow the community for your language step by step and all wikipedians on that wiki will be able to help newbies with how-to questions - when it comes to explain an interwiki-link and wiki links etc.: that can be done by anyone.
- You make sure that people are really about maintaining their language and political issues get excluded by co-operation. (remeber: Wikipedia is about NPOV)
- Once you have enough editors and pages in your language you can of course divide the wikipedia, but will it make sense at that time in the future?
- Anyway: you want your language to survive: so work on it, create contents and co-operate to create a unique place where people who are about language, culture and bringing NPOV encyclopaedic articles can give their best.
- Btw. did you know that Sykpe transforms a :* like used at the beginning of the above lines into a kiss? So baci ed abbracci (kisses and hugs) ;-)
- --Sabine 11:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- not trivial, but I Oppose. I agree with the fact that EMR should be a better code, but it should be got as an ISO standard. That's difficult but far from impossible. Meanwhile, please start writing: every user could state this fact clearly at her/his user page. Best regards--10caart 11:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I do agree. Even for me it was far from trivial, and I were sorry to oppose. The question of the code could be dealt with, in case of cooperation. Cheers, --clamengh 17:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose There are Many reasons for this, as I stated here, namely
- Working on eml is not wasting work, as in can easily be transferred to any other wikis
- There are very few of us working on this project already: further fragmentation would yield 6 useless 100-entry wikipediedias, indstread of a barely usable 600-entry
- While it is true that "emiliano-romagnolo" is not a language, the same can be said of Bolognese, Modenese, Ferrarese... So where do we draw the line? Is Sammarinese different enough to be granted its own wikipedia? Why not Porretta Terme? Lugo? Carpi? What about the variant spoken in the western quartiers of Bologna? My point: all (or most) of these languages/dialects/whatever have sufficient common linguisti and cultural root to be mutually intelligible.
- Oppose Yes, I believe one day these people will require a Wikipedia in Carpigiano, Lughese, Porrettano or Imolese. It's simply crazy!! We already fought a lot to have our Wikipedia in Emilian-Romagnolo and now they just want to destroy it in order to create eight, nine maybe ten weaker and meaningless wikipedias with less than 50 articles each. We gave each speaker the opportunity to write in his/her own dialect, why should we further divide ourselves?? We should try to join ourselves to have more power and not divide and nullify our efforts. it:Utente:Selks
RUM already exists, it's for Romanian. I checked out on ISO web site.
I can try to call for EMR code, I know that it's difficult but far from impossible.
But it surely will take me a lot of time.
Btw, who decided the code "eml" so superficially?
Sentruper 21 october 2006
- Well, I did not choose this code, but considering that 99% of the projects use a correct ISO 639 code it was the correct code to choose because it describes what is being presented on the wiki - the whole group of languages included in the code. Considering that co-operation instead of working alone brings also more fun and lets go projects ahead it was a good decision. I is just a code for languages, not a code that tells you where you live. I repeat it could well be anything, but in order to not mix up completly things it should use ISO 639-3 or you get a similar situation like with Alemannisch ... the code they use is the official code for an Albanian language and often people who do not understand that language at all look at the domain name and automatically associate the code with Albania ... so consider that if you chose rmg as a code people would mix up Romagnolo with Traveller Norvegian - it is misleading, since people work with standards and up to now, lik I already said 99% of the wikimedia projects use ISO-standard codes. When Romagnolo itself has the prerequisites to get its own code, then you get it and eml will probably become a macro code. The other possibility is you have really many articles on eml.wikipedia that get moved to a separate wiki eml-ROMA or something similar. Taking any three letter code that is not in the ISO-list cound creat problems later since ISO is creating new codes and for sure will not consider wikimedia projects as an attendible source. There is a criteria how they assign the letters and that has to be followed for them internally. Anyway: it does not make sense to separate a wiki now now since it would multiply mainainance work on the wikis and make it more difficult to get the projects running. --Sabine 08:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - Strong oppose - Also Biondelli and C. Tagliavini called this language "Emiliano-Romagnolo". -- Zuketort 09:00, 30 October 2006 (GMT+1)
Oppose - It's time to cooperate, it is NOT time to divide the forces! -- Rainbowl 10:00, 03 November 2006 (GMT+1)
I'm neutral. I think that the problem is not decidible.
From a point of view, the Emilian speakers understand well the Romagnol speakers (and viceversa), so none can say that Emilian and Romagnol are two different languages.
From another point of view, the history of the Romagna was quite different from the history of Emilia. The results are described in the chapter Effects of the Lombard-Byzantine Partition of Northern Italy in The linguistic unity of Northern Italy and Raethia (© Geoffrey Hull, 1982). If someone is interested, the document is published on http://www.alpdn.org/alp.
-- Dragonòt 10:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your contribution.
About the first part of your letter, I suggest you to be more careful. Their origin is similar (words in both dialects come from Latin), but the intonation is totally different: Romagnolo has different vowels and is full of consonants. In fact a Romagnolo can well understand bolognese, modenese and ferrarese but not viceversa.
Sentruper - 25 October 2006
- This sentence is totally false, at least as I am concerned :-) In addition, 'mutally intelligible' works, in general, both ways. it:Utente/Piffy 184.108.40.206 17:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Aiocherachimura: che cosa ho detto? :-))))
Sentruper - 28 October 2006
- Supporters of this project should also consider that its approval could imply the splitting of Emilian Romagnol wikipedia in a Emilian wikipedia and in a Romagnolo wikipedia.
Is there a law by which if a new Wiki is open, another one must be closed?
2) Why didn't you sign your message?
3) What is this banner? Why don't you post your message at bottom like all others?
When Wikimedia approved Wiki in Emilian-Romagnolo, did you know what you were about to approve? You approved something that doesn't exist.
Maybe somebody told you that Emilian-Romagnolo is a language. But that's not true.
As an evidence, if you go to on the home page of eml.wikipedia you will find the words emiglian and rumagnol.
But a couple of weeks ago there were one word: emiglian-rumagnol.
Now I understand: someone called for eml.wikipedia saying that Emilia-Romagna is the place where emiglian-rumagnol is spoken. I'm sorry. it's not true.
This guy(s) made a fool of Wikimedia.
Sentruper 20 october 2006
I'm changed from closing to splitting. --Ebano 14:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)