The mn-Mong indicates mn in the Mongolian script. This code has its own
problems because it is a macro language. The notion that a script is
indicated is seen different from the notion that a specific way for a
country is indicated.
Mind you many dialects are more different than the differences between
countries.. eg Geordie and Australian English.
On 1 December 2016 at 16:59, gfb hjjhjh <c933...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then again, how about http://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T137810 for
> 2016年12月1日 15:14 於 "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> 寫道：
>> I am sorry but when people want to localise Klingon in the Klingon script
>> they are welcome to it. This has nothing to do with the language policy. It
>> is up to the people at translatewiki.net to decide on that. In the past
>> their requirement for Klingon was that it had to use the Klingon script.
>> The scope of the language committee typically ends with the creation of a
>> new project. However, in the past we did recommend for the closure of wikis
>> when the language used was NOT the language advertised. The removal
>> happened in the end.
>> We do and did get involvement in the addition of new languages in
>> Wikidata for ISO 639-3. The purpose was that they did not wan to add all
>> languages and having a process where the language committee wisely nodded
>> is what we have. This is for ISO 639-3 only.
>> On 30 November 2016 at 12:55, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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>
>>> >> 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 mailing list
> Langcom mailing list
Langcom mailing list