Now the consensus is lost. I suggest to close this "bug" and open a new only if
it get approved.

Please notice, that according to the rules for voting
(http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Language_domain_requests/Rules_for_voting) no consensus is
needed. Actually the rules state "There is normally no 'oppose' vote". The word 'normally' makes
limitations to this "no oppose votes" rule, but only for "extinct ancient" or "artificial languages". A
third "borderline case" are "closely related languages where it is not always clear when a separate wiki
is needed". This rule is what comes nearest to the oppose-votes of Standard High German Wikisource
users, that opposed. But this rule doesn't match really. The claim for representation made by
de.Wikisource is not based on close-relatedness, but on the fact, that Standard High German is the
official and dominant language in Northern Germany (and this forgets about the speakers of Low Saxon in
the Netherlands unable to understand Standard High German of de.Wikisource). If we look at the
relatedness Low Saxon is to nearly the same degree related to Standard High German as Algemeen Beschafd
Dutch is. If you look into etymological dictionaries they always will name the Low Saxon cognates of the
High German words (but they won't for High German dialects as Ripuarian [ksh], Bavarian [bar] and
Allemannic [als]). A writer who is writing a text always will exactly know, whether his text is High
German or Low Saxon. There are no smooth transiotions from one to the other. Low Saxon is not an
artificial politically motivated separation like Moldovan or the upsplit of Serbocroatian but its the
opposite case where politics wants to see Low Saxon and High German as one, neglecting the eminent
linguistical differences. For its linguistical differences Low Saxon is officially recognized as a
language by the European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages.

And please bear in mind that only a one-day flashmob of High German Wikisource users opposed.

The main criteria for Wikisource creation according the rules are fulfilled. There are four active
contributors to other projects in the same language (rule 2 and three under votes). The lost consensus
is not relevant according to the voting rules.

river wrote:

closing this bug since ndswikisource is now going through langcom approval.
please re-open it once there is a decision to create this wiki.