khk and mvf are two major different dialects in the umbrella of mn with limited intelligibility between them, but when written with Mong, the text should be about the same other than some loanwords etc., and the colloquial variation are not reflected onto -Mong writing, according to my understanding on the macrolanguage, which mean khk-Mong and mvf-Mong should be the same other than some word choice, which mean when writing in -Mong, khk and mvf writers would bend their language into an universal custom of -Mong writing. Thus I think it make little sense to differentiate inside mn for -Mong.

2016年12月2日 13:41 於 "Gerard Meijssen" <> 寫道:
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 <> wrote:

Then again, how about for mn-Mong?

2016年12月1日 15:14 於 "Gerard Meijssen" <> 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 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 <> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Lydia Pintscher
<> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Milos Rancic <> 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 mailing list

Langcom mailing list

Langcom mailing list