On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Lydia Pintscher <lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Yes. The point is then that Wikidata doesn't need approval from us for >> any valid BCP 47 combination with a valid ISO 639-3 code and that they >> should just consult us just to be sure it's not a nonsense. > > The consultation part is important for me personally. I don't have > enough knowledge on language codes and so on to decide which ones are > following a given standard or not. So I'd like some sanity checking > from you folks and I got that in the past on tickets in phabricator. > Thanks for that.
Yes. I see that the scope of Language committee ends with localization implemented into Wikimedia projects (so, theoretically, a subset of what's been done on TranslateWiki). In other words, political responsibility of Wikimedia Foundation ends there and LangCom is the keeper of that level of integrity (no, we don't need Klingon localization because its educational value is zero, but it's completely valid to make it for fun and implement into some non-Wikimedia MediaWiki installations). Contrary to that, LangCom shouldn't interfere into the content of Wikimedia projects, like Wikidata is. But, yes, it's useful to consult LangCom in more formal cases, like adding a new language into the Wikidata sets. _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
