Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Simple German 2

Simple German Wikipedia

See also the third (rejected) and fourth (rejected) requests.

submitted verification final decision
  This proposal has been rejected.
This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy based on the discussion on this page.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

The policy does not allow for new "simple" projects. GerardM 06:51, 2 August 2008
Proposal summary
  • Language details: German (deutsch, de ISO 639-1 ) German already has a Wikipedia.
  • Editing community: Midnight Star (NP), OosWesThoesBes, PeterTheOne (N)
    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: development wiki project does not exist yet
  • External links:
    to be added
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

Arguments in favour

  • It's always good to think of all people. There are more people who can't really be on the ball with Wikipedia's contents than you can imagine - even among enthusiastic regular WP readers.
  • German is one of the most difficult occidental languages. A Simple German Wikipedia could help.
  • The Simple English Wikipedia runs quite successfull and the German Wikipedia is the second largest Wikimedia Project.
  • A Simple German Wikipedia might attract new collaborators.
  • Projects need time to grow. Better to start this project soon then to wait some more years.
  • German is a much too difficult language. Simple German is needed. My German is very bad because of those difficulties. --OosWesThoesBes 10:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against

  • German isn't comparable to English at all, so one can't account for a Simple German Wikipedia just because the Simple English Wikipedia is a meaningful and well running project.
  • The emergence of a Simple German Wikipedia might irritate people.
  • Simple German as a constructed artificial language does not exist yet - writing it would be original research ;) And Wikipedia is'nt the medium to invent new language varieties. --Rax 00:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Simple German' does not exist, even if some people wish for it very hard, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • better add an article level to wikipedia as suggested here. This way a request for simple French and simple Spanish can also be prevented
  • Please don't resubmit old requests without addressing the issues that led to their rejection, in this case, that a language "Simple German" does not exist. This proposal will be rejected.
  • Creating something called "Simple German" for Wikipedia would be original research. If you really want to have a Wikipedia in this language,
  • Without a defined subset of words/grammar there's no chance to get this project working. Additionally it's quite doubtful that reading badly worded articles may help to improve ones language skills. --32X 15:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original Research, phhh. Come on, Simple German is just German in simple words, there's nothing original and nothing research. Simple English Wikipedia too does not use any specific ruleset like Basic English. The only rule is: simple.
And that's the problem, I see. Simple English Wikipedia is not simple enough. According to the SMOG test, Simple English Wikipedia needs the language skills of an 11th grader. That's not simple enough in my opinion. It's too hard to create a meaningful simple German Wikipedia. --::Slomox:: >< 19:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We all know (or everybody who is literate in English is at least able to know) that this is a waste of time, as only recognised languages which have their own ISO codes are eligible under the language proposal policy. Apart from that I simply cannot think of any example of your "just simple" at work. Not only that there is no ISO code for "simple German" - there is not even an informal standard what it might be. Or can you point me to e.g. a web site in "simple German"? Or maybe a simple text in simple German. Maybe a simple German translation of a small German Wikipedia article?
Even though I disagree with the Language committee on a number of issues, I feel that their policy not to have multiple Wikipedias for variants of a single language is the right decision. Else - what would be next? Intellectual German? Kanak sprak? Conservative German? I don't believe that this would yield any truly useful results. We already have countless Wikis in German dialects / regional languages. Although I have my sympathies for them, I believe that those Wikis being consulted as sources of information is something extremely rare. Most of them just play Encyclopaedia without a chance of ever becoming one. "Simple German" would certainly share the same fate (apart from the simple fact that is is not eligible anyhow) --Johannes Rohr 19:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might be surprised, but I can point you to references. Try for example googling for jugendlexikon (youth lexicon) or kinderlexikon (childrens' lexicon). Trying to create reference works in simple language is quite common. The simple German Wikipedia is not restricted to content for children or young people, but for language learners and for people with learning disabilities. I think these additional don't change the methodology of an youth lexicon in general. Use easy words. A policy is needed for a new project with guidelines on how to write easy, but this is not in general a hindering reason. Your other examples of what next? are of course ridiculous, but you know that, cause that was intentional.
Well, actually I'm on your side, I am against the project, but I don't want it rejected for the wrong reasons. Policy does not allow it is a good reason, but policy can change (and it's obvious that the current policy has flaws that need to be changed). If the proposers of the project would present a working policy on what they want to achieve (write articles for 5 year olds or 15 year olds?) and how to achieve it, and the policy sounds good, I would support it. But I don't believe this will happen. --::Slomox:: >< 01:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found this site [1], entitled "Jugendlexikon". but the site has no content. When you click "Was ist ...?" you are sent to
So there is nothing there.
I have found a "Kinderlexikon", but here the main difference is not that of simple language but of simple content. This would be a different project, certainly not an encyclopaedia in the same sense as Wikipedia. --Johannes Rohr 09:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an argument in favor. If people are willing to spend their time and effort on that project instead of the main German project, they obviously believe that the project is useful and can add additional value. --::Slomox:: >< 23:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rules changed since Smple English was adopted. Now the rules require a language to have an ISO code and have substantial text base. It should also be substantially different from other languages (even well-established and widely used dialects with codified grammar such as Latgalian and Ruthenian are not allowed). So there will be no 'simple' Wikipedia ever other than Simple English.--Nxx 13:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to protest that rule; I feel that "simple" Wikipedias in languages other than English should be allowed, or the Simple English wiki closed as a waste of time. Why should English be given special treatment? 05:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussion