Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mongols/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Proposal for a 200-WikiProject contest

A proposal has been posted for a contest between all 200 country WikiProjects. We're looking for judges, coordinators, ideas, and feedback.

The Transhumanist 00:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a 200-WikiProject contest

A proposal has been posted for a contest between all 200 country WikiProjects. We're looking for judges, coordinators, ideas, and feedback.

The Transhumanist 00:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Population data for Mongolia

Hi! I would like to have information on the distribution of Mongolian population between true countryside, sum centres, aimag centres and the three cities. I think there should be data for 2008, but I cannot find it. (The data of the great census of 2010 has not yet come forward.) Greetings, G Purevdorj (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Members of this work group

There is a sufficiently impressive list of members of this work group and it used to be a useful platform for Wikipedia activities. But given recent developments, I wonder whether there are any editors left in this work group, and if so, what they are busy with on Wikipedia and on what scale. (When writing this, Nanshu came to my mind, but s/he is actually not a group member.) G Purevdorj (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Several years ago I decided not to join any Wikiprojects because I was too inactive to take cooperative actions. Given the current status of this project, it seems a pointless concern :) As a far-from-fluent nonnative speaker, I believe that my role in English Wikipedia is to contribute to fields where little or no English sources are available. Unfortunately Mongolia is one of these fields. Currently I am interested in modern southeastern Mongolia, which is today controlled by the PRC. But I remain inactive. I create at most several articles a year. --Nanshu (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the member list was removed in early 2010 :) Yaan (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama attack on the Commons

Certain individuals at Wikimedia Commons are deleting all photos of Mongolian buildings from the project due to some highly questionable readings of copyright law. This is something that needs to be addressed. Vidor (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Massive terminology changes

I noticed Enchyin (talk · contribs)'s ongoing paraphrasing on Mongol-related articles (Manchu Qing Empire -> Qing Dynasty, Manchu Empire -> Qing Dynasty, Qing Dynasty -> Chinese, Qing -> Qing China, etc), which is questionable to say the least. At first glance it seems a minor problem, but when it is done systematically, it is getting more like censorship that needs justification. I left a comment at User talk:Enchyin and he/she relied at my talk page. But I would like to discuss this problem here to seek a third opinion. --Nanshu (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

[Enchyin's remark: some information above is not entirely true; the changes are neither "ongoing" nor "massive", as would be pointed out below]

Hi Nanshu,

Thanks for your message. While I agree with what you said usually and really respect you as a knowledgeable Wikipedian, I do not really think my edit in Yangsanjab is incorrect though. I basically changed "Manchu Empire" in that article to "Qing Dynasty", because this is the common English name of the entity whose official name was "Great Qing". I did not change it to "China" or "Chinese Empire" in that article, but to "Qing Dynasty", because this is the usual name of the entity in English language. You can compare it with Yuan Dynasty, it is called "Yuan Dynasty", but yet it remains a Mongol (not Chinese) dynasty. While both Yuan and Qing were not founded by Han Chinese, historians usually consider Yuan and Qing differently. As far as I know, the current academic convention is that Yuan is Mongol but Qing is a "Chinese" one. While there is no doubt Qing was not simply yet another Chinese dynasty (e.g. Ming), Qing rulers (unlike the Yuan) did consider the country as China, as can be seen in international treaties signed with foreign states (e.g. Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet). I'm aware about the complicated relationships between Manchu and Mongols (indeed, much or most contents of the Mongolia during Qing rule article was written by me); however, I think it may be better to stick with current academic conventions in Wikipedia. When talking about relationship between Qing Dynasty and another country (e.g. Japan), we usually say "China and Japan" etc, but when dealing with Inner and Outer Mongols within the Qing domain, we usually only say "Qing Dynasty". Qing was of course ruled by Manchus, but internationally at least they considered themselves as a Chinese rather than Manchu Empire. For your information, the 1689 Treaty of Nerchinsk (which set the northeastern or Manchurian border with Russia), as can be found here, already used the name "China" (even the Manchu text of the fourth article of the treaty says "The Russians now living in China and the Chinese subjects who are in Russia shall be left there for the rest of their lives"). The full text of Latin version of the treaty can also be founded here. Note that the treaty starts with "Sancti Sinarum Imperatoris", meaning "Holy Emperor of China". And the territorial term (article I) mentioned ".. sint sub Imperii Sinici dominio", meaning ".. belong to the dominion of the Chinese Empire". Clearly, Qing rulers themselves considered it a Chinese entity, not a Manchu one. This would not happen with the Yuan rulers on the other hand, which remained a Mongol entity. For more details regarding Qing's identification with China, see the article "Reinventing China: Imperial Qing Ideology and the Rise of Modern Chinese National Identity in the Early Twentieth Century" [2]. And it did mention that "shortly after occupying Beijing, the Qing rulers began to identify their own empire as China". You can also see this original 1896 New York Times article on Earl Li's visit to United States at that time, when he was welcomed as a national guest coming from Imperial China. --Enchyin (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I just checked one of your messages in a talk page and see what your concern may really be, although I think we should better focus on history stuff, and really avoid anything involving politics or so. You know, I was somehow playing with my friend here (who is obviously also watching such pages), and that's basically it. If you somehow know what happened earlier with some other people, then you probably won't have such concerns (in fact, someone there seems to know almost everything about it). Everyone can communicate directly to solve any possible problems or misunderstanding and become good Wikipedians. Thanks for making a better Wiki environment without involving politics. Also I would not forget to say thank you for the message last time as I was just about to leave for a while then.

P.S. Sorry I may be a little excited because I felt I was indeed trying to do constructive edits, but FYI I was editing them mainly for fixing for conventions etc, also as part of communication with my friend, but I have ceased to change any of them after seeing your message as you seem to have concerns with it and also because I respect you, even if I don't really think my edit was incorrect. Anyway I'll leave pages as is for now if you don't support it. --Enchyin (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In my understanding, Enchyin's lengthy comment can be summarized as follows:
  1. Various sources equate the Qing Dynasty with China [Enchyin's remark: This summary may not be entirely correct; it was only pointed out "China" was used as the country name in Qing treaties etc, but not that the two concepts are completely equivalent]
  2. Equating the Qing Dynasty with China is the current academic convention. [Enchyin's remark: this summary is perhaps also not entirely correct. It was only pointed out when Inner/Outer Mongols were NOT involved we can just follow the usual western-world convention using the name "China" (e.g. "China and Japan"), otherwise use "Qing Dynasty" or so]
For the first point, I am fully aware that the Westerners insensitively called the Qing Dynasty China as China was by far the largest (in terms of population and economy) entity of the empire. We should note that there is an asymmetry in this problem: Those who are aware of the "ethnic minority" problem and those who are not. The former must never crush the latter when it comes to the the very problem.
It is easy to rebut the second point. Just google "new Qing history." It is a trend in American academics. Needless to say, Altaicists have long argued against the sinocentric view. For example, here I quote from Nakami Tatsuo's classic work titled The Mongols and the 1911 Revolution in Etō Shinkichi and Harold Z, Schiffrin ed. "The 1911 Revolution in China" (1984):
For the reason Nakami stated, the Qing was the empire of the Manchu emperor and by no means China in relation with the Mongols. But readers would not usually be aware of this, so it needs to be clarified with the term "Manchu (Qing) Empire." This term also consorts with the Mongolian term "Манж Чин улс." --Nanshu (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Nanshu, thanks for your comments. However, there are a few points obviously needed to be clarified or corrected:
First of all, the change is not "ongoing". I have not edited any articles within at least a week, and as stated I will probably only focus on few articles for other issues in the near future.
Second, such change (as mentioned above) is neither "massive" nor "systematic". In fact, the changes were probably done in less than 5 pages in total, and the actual changes are largely different. Clearly, you can not label such kind of changes as "massive" or so, and currently I'm not really interested in making such changes in other pages.
Now about the main problem regarding Qing and China. Here are a few points to be clarified:
1. Maybe you missed some of my points in my previous comments. I never equate the Qing Dynasty with China, but mainly pointed out that "Qing Dynasty" is the usual name for the entity named "Great Qing". As previously pointed out regarding the Yangsanjab article, I changed "Manchu Empire" to "Qing Dynasty" (but not China) mainly because this is the usual name for the entity in English-language world. "Qing Empire" or "Manchu Qing Dynasty" are also fine, but as mentioned in the previous message "Manchu Empire" is probably not a good option (yes, Qing was mainly Manchu in relation with the Mongols, so "Manchu Qing Dynasty" is fine [and I never changed this term in the article], although I think we should also not equate Qing with Manchu when talking about the empire as a whole; after all, Qing rulers internationally considered itself a Chinese entity and thus being biased to be simply called as a Manchu Empire). However I never insisted such changes.
2. IIRC as had been pointed out elsewhere, the reality is that Qing rulers considered the empire as "Zhongguo" meaning "Middle Kingdom" (as can be found in Qing treaties signed with foreign countries), while Mongols (Outer Mongols especially) considered they were subordinate to Qing emperors, but not to "Zhongguo" meaning "Kitad" (or state of Han Chinese) or knew there were part of "Zhongguo" meaning "Middle Kingdom". I don't think I have ever equated "Kitad" with Qing Empire, but just that "Manchu Empire" may be changed to "(Manchu) Qing Dynasty", "Qing Empire" or so, and when Inner/Outer Mongols were NOT involved we can just follow the typical western-world conventions using the name "China" (such as "China and Japan"; also note that I changed certain instance in one page to "Chinese" because it does not directly deal with Inner/Outer Mongols). This way of handling is also clearly not in contrast with the quote presented above. --Enchyin (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Mongol bichig bug in firefox

Just in case someone wonders why suffixes in unicode seem to look strange on firefox, this is a known bug. Yaan (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Also I'm having a problem of the Tibetan script in Firefox for years. Vertical combinations are dissociated into horizontal. Gantuya eng (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, is there consensus that we should use Mongolian unicode on WP? If so, this could be made part of the to-do list. Yaan (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
No, no current consensus or guideline on this. Given its weaknesses, I am unsure as well. If one could avoid letters that look identical, but have different underlying values for a search engine! Mongolian Unicode is the best we have, but it is a catastrophy. Maybe some (very particular) typing conventions might help. G Purevdorj (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I assume you are referring to o/u and ö/ü, not to a/e/n? I don't really think that these are such a big technical problem for such engines. Not bigger than oe and ö or 國 and 国. Of course they would require someone at google to fix them, but if they have already fixed the other problems, this one should not take much effort.
Also I am not really sure if there are any better alternatives.
Re. typing conventions, I think I could live with them, but would it not be be difficult to check whether they are adhered to? I guess one could use some outside tools or some transkription template (e.g. тэст, just with Mongol bichig letters), but just from looking at the mongolian letters it is impossible to tell o and u apart, is it not? Yaan (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, checking could only be done electronically. n is rather unproblematic, but probably neither a/e in non-word-initial position nor o/u/ö/ü in non-first syllables. If we want to integrate texts in older orthography, n will become a problem. v, too. But working out a proposal here would require contacting Google first. But foremost, the search within Wikipedia must work properly. How to go for it? G Purevdorj (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not really sure. Given that wp seems to be all open source, there should be a way that anyone can fix this, at least theoretically (in practice, once you think you have fixed the search engine, you'd probably still have to wait for the next release, then wait until wp adopts the newest version of the engine ... ). this page says wikipedia is using a search engine named Apache Lucene, but given that the source is somewhat old, the info may be out-dated.
Otherwise, on wp one can always create redirects. Yaan (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Of course changing the software would be the more satisfying solution. Yaan (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Redirects (in the sense of redirect pages) are not any solution whatsoever. Would you be able to implement a program change in the search software? G Purevdorj (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Not sure. I can look into it, but in any case it would probably take quite a while. Yaan (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Now it seems that the problem with the Tibetan Script has been solved in the newer versions of Firefox. Gantuya eng (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ar Khorchin or Ar Horqin?

I sometime ago moved Ar Horqin Banner to Ar Khorchin Banner, and this move was recently undone by 虞海 with her/his usual lack of discussion. I consider re-moving that page to what I would consider its proper place, but I would appreciate anyone's input on Talk:Ar Horqin Banner. G Purevdorj (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Transcription of Mongolian Cyrillic

A far-reaching change of the transciption conventions for Cyrillic Mongolian has been suggested at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Mongolian), and the proposers have already started moving pages. The suggestion is kh > h, ö > o', ü > u' which I consider unfortunate in view of both searchability and workload. In any case, I'd invite anybody to join the discussion (if there is anybody around here). G Purevdorj (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Project banner

At present some Mongolia-related articles are marked with a banner reading "WikiProject Central Asia|Mongolia" but there is no template (as there is for Kazakhstan and Tuva) which produces a display for the Mongolia work group. Would it be possible do do this?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

X dialect to X Mongolian

I am proposing to move a number of articles related to Mongolic. Currently, a number of articles have titles like Khorchin dialect or Kalmyk language. Now while there are four major dialect groups, spoken language recognizes only three of these: Buriat, Oirat and Mongolian (proper). So I would like to move to Khorchin Mongolian and Kalmyk Oirat, respectively. Any opinions welcome! G Purevdorj (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Support: I personally support this, with rare hope. But if this proposal won't receive enough opposing voices, I think we can procceed. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Wait a week. If nothing happens in-between, remind me to proceed! G Purevdorj (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I worry that there will be no opposition these days but at the time you proceed it, there will be strong oppositions - those who oppose this are not watching this workgroup. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Support seems to be the way things are typically named - modifyer root language (at least in English, see Canadian English, Newfoundland English], Quebec French, etc.) --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Reaffiliating the Mongolia work group

Can't you understand that Wikipedia task forces or projects can choose their affiliation themselves? German sometimes draws a line between Zentralasien and Mittelasien. In any case, Mongolia has to be included into the Central Asian cultural sphere, not into the East Asian cultural sphere (as is true of Qinghai, Xinjiang and Tibet from a pre-colonianization perspective). G Purevdorj (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed? May I proclaim a workgroup Wikipedia:WikiProject China/Hawaii workgroup?
You may argue that Mongolian culture is similar to some Turkic culture in Central Asia, but I may also argue that Mongolian culture is also similar to Manchu culture in East Asia! So such claim may be endless and non-substantial. Why not follow common tradition per UN definition? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
User:虞海 does have some point. But if there is a problem as such, why not also thinking about methods to avoid the problem, such as simply place it under Wikipedia:WikiProject Mongolia, similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet or Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia etc instead? --Chinyin (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Mongolian culture has much more common with the Turkic cultures, especially at the basic, material level. Gantuya eng (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
You should have made such a reply to User:虞海 if it's your desire to make comparison of cultures, as he was the one to mention the Manchu culture. But I'd write some short comments since it is posted here. Maybe Mongolian culture is indeed more common with the Turkic cultures than Manchurian ones esp during earlier periods, but it is probably too big to say "much more" if considering the whole period. For example, Mongols and Manchus did have strong ties since the late 16th century, both allied marriage and military (among others). --Chinyin (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
虞海, it is nice to have a clear statement about your agenda. Mongolia as a word is wide enough to include northern and southern (Greater) Mongolia. While a sensible discussion might lead to a better naming, your methods to arrive at such renaming are not acceptable. If there is no wider interest to discuss your point of view and you are not even a member of said work group, it is not up to you to move the page. Your comment on "original research" is entirely off the mark: we are not talking about the content of Wikipedia as such, but about particular work groups or projects that serve to bundle and structure the editing of Wikipedia. If the members of a given work group hold a certain approach to the scope of their work group, they do not have to prove this with reliable sources. G Purevdorj (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem is:
  1. Mongols in Mongolia does not refer Mongolia as Northern Mongolia or Rear Mongolia, and this make the term "Mongolia" commonly refers to the Mongolian state.
  2. The flag of Mongolian state is labeled on the workgroup. If the project refers to the Greater Mongolia, flag all over the Greater Mongolia must be added (then we might have to add the Chinese and Russian flag inside). Anyway, all Mongols (no matter front or rear) are equal, and you should not use a part of them to refer all.
––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 18:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Mongolia

Template:WikiProject Mongolia is odd, {{WikiProject Mongolia}} redirects to {{WikiProject Central Asia}}, but there's no flag for Mongolia on that template, even though this workgroup exists. Neither does {{WikiProject East Asia}} support the workgroup with a flag. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above indicates that WP Mongolia or the Mongolia work group or whatever it will now become is no country project. I fancy the discussion that rejected using the flag of the Mongolian state should be within the achieves of this very talk page. We opted for using a picture of the yurt as visual representation then. G Purevdorj (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with a flag (or switch or parameter) on a template. If you have a flag "|Mongolia=yes" on a template, it doesn't require a visual representation. Simply, WPCentAsia or WPEAsia templates do not support this Workgroup, there is no way to flag/turn-on the workgroup. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, got it. An important point to address once the discussion above is over. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
If this becomes a full wikiproject, we can just rebuild {{WikiProject Mongolia}} into something that uses {{WPBannerMeta}} instead of being a redirect. If it stays as a workgroup, and it becomes part of WPAsia, then {{WikiProject Asia}} would need to add the flag, if it stays at WPEAsia, then {{WikiProject East Asia}} would need to add it, if it returns to WPCentAsia, then {{WikiProject Central Asia}} would need to specify TF3. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
If this becomes a separate project, this could have a banner like Template talk:WikiProject Mongolia/sandbox 1
If this remains a workgroup/taskforce, and we want an additional banner for additional ratings, it could be something like Template_talk:WikiProject_Mongolia/sandbox_2
An example of flagging this to East Asia or Central Asia Template talk:WikiProject Mongolia/sandbox 0
(This is a mock-up for EAsia and CentAsia, the real banners do not currently support Mongols, only WPAsia does)
76.65.128.198 (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

With the move to WPMongols, there's a need for atleast a redirect at Template:WikiProject Mongols/Template:WP Mongols . 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject Mongols?

Arguing that "Mongolia" as a term refers to the Mongolian state (even) in the language use of the inhabitants of said state and that partly referring to all Mongols by a term that does not include them geographically is wrong. It is (unfortunately) true that the more common usage of Mongolia refers to the state, as does the link in Wikipedia. Therefore, a term that is more obviously inclusive would constitute an improvement. Mongols tends to be applied more in historical contexts, but if we disregard this, the term includes about everything that this project professes to include. While WP Central Asia used to have an elaborate structure of work groups, this structure has disintegrated quite a while ago, and so has the relevance of WP Central Asia for the actual practice of this work group. So turning it into a project might make some sense. Nanshu (talk) and 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ seem to be in favor of this solution. Other opinions? G Purevdorj (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the good explanation. I would support this solution too, as it will be more about history and culture than things that may involve modern politics or so. --Chinyin (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with WPMongols. With the loss of structure at WPCentAsia, there's also the option of moving it to WPAsia... since that part of "East Europe" is arguable part of Asia, depending on the definition of Europe and Asia. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
According to the Mongols article, "Smaller numbers of Mongols exist in Western Europe and North America. Some of the more notable communities exist in the South Korea, the United States, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom." Basically it may be possible to find individuals of Mongol ethnicity all over the world, but WPAsia is already a great progress. --Chinyin (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mongols.

Wikipedia:WikiProject East Asia/Mongolia work group → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Central Asia/Mongolia work group – Several years ago, when the WP Central Asia disintegrated, the Mongolia work group and Tuva work group decided not to turn into projects, but to remain work groups of that project. Be this due to the all-too-clear territorial status of Tuva, the fragmentation of Greater Mongolia over several countries or whatever. From a cultural and linguistic point, it is impossible to understand Mongolia from an East Asian perspective, but it is necessary to take Central Asia with all the Turkic and Bodic people as a basis. The user who undertook this move is neither member of this (half-dead) work group nor did s/he (as usually) consider any discussion before moving. G Purevdorj (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment:
  1. See #Reaffiliating the Mongolia work group
  2. Greater Mongolia is a large body - Inner Mongolia, Mongolian state, and Xinjiang and Kokonur Oirats from East Asia; Tuva, Buryatia, etc. from North Asia; Kalmykia from East Europe; and Mogholistan from Central Asia. It's impossible to find a common Asian Region to list them in.
  3. If we are aiming at a cultural and linguistic project, I propose move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mongol Yastan instead.
––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I would actually not be discontent with your suggestion of renaming, albeit we might have to refine the name. The work group, before going defunct, did take a cultural rather than a purely geographical approach to these matters. You might have asked some semi-active (i.e., on Wikipedia) members of the work group (such as Latebird, Yaan, Gantuya eng) whether they would support or oppose such a move. But it was certainly not for you to decide. G Purevdorj (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a discussion is encouraged before such a move occurs. The user made the move (User:虞海) gave an edit summary with the move, but a proper discussion was not done before that even though there may be likely objections (Nevertheless, he probably did so because another editor had recently done a similar action in other page). However, I think it's also better to always try to perform the discussion in usual WP style (i.e. intended to everyone in general), instead of more restrictive or possibly implying with a different or extended meaning to certain editors (which I have been aware of). This should be considered important for a better Wikipedia environment. I know some editors may have tried the latter recently, but it should generally be avoided for proper discussions and for Wikipedia as a whole. Regarding the content, whether the Mongolia region or work group may be affiliated with East Asia or Central Asia is indeed a debatable topic, but I think it's better not take it along the notion of territorial status or concept that may (even though indirectly) imply political meaning or so, even if it's intended to talk about history or culture etc. Indeed, Mongolia can belong to either East Asia or Central Asia, depending on the definitions, although I agree with the editor who made the move that "Central Asia" in current usage mostly refers to the Islamic countries or the *stans. When purely talking about history regarding outer regions once under Qing rule, such as Mongolia, Tibet and Manchuria, it seems that the term Inner Asia is more commonly used, instead of either Central or East Asia, as the term Central Asia there more usually refers to regions had been controlled by the Russians since the 17-18th century. Since there is no Inner Asia project, there may be a problem on where they exactly belongs, although UN seems to consider them under the category of East Asia, which seems to be justifiable, but never considered perfect. Another possible (and probably less debatable) option is to simply place it under Wikipedia:WikiProject Mongolia, similar to other regions or countries such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet and Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia etc, avoiding the Central or East Asia affiliation issue completely. --Chinyin (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that WP Mongolia may be misunderstood as a country WP. That holds true of Mongolia work group as well, but integrating it into a WP Central Asia meant relating its scope to the nomadic cultural sphere of Central and Inner Asia and thus working against this misinterpretation. In Wikipedia practice, there proved to be little point in that, because the work group and WP Central Asia usually did not interact after the project was disintegrated into so many country projects. One might consider WP Greater Mongolia or WP Mongolian culture, but again I am not comfortable with either. Ideas for renaming could actually be welcome. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the issue of misunderstanding as country, I think we need to consider how other regions or countries are organized as project in general. It appears currently that WP xxx can apply to both regions (such as WP Tibet) and countries (such as WP Russia), and issues can definitely rise regarding the scope of WP Tibet (i.e. Tibet AR, Greater Tibet, or Tibetan culture). The way that project handles is to clearly state on the top of the project page that "The aim of this project is to standardize and improve articles related to Tibet and the Tibet Autonomous Region. It is also to establish missing articles related to Tibet including geography (Tibetan villages) as well as to improve and create missing articles relating to Tibetan culture and Tibetan Buddhism.", so it may not be really a problem. On the other hand, simply integrating Mongolia under WP Central Asia would probably artificially restrict Mongolia project to Central Asian (mostly Islamic) culture sphere, ignoring the other including East Asian feature of Mongolia. After all, Mongolia may be considered a mix of Central and East Asian features, even though one may be more prominent than the other from different perspectives. But of course WP Mongolia can clearly state on its page regarding its relationship with WP Central Asia to ensure interactions with that project if desired, in addition to possibly establish interactions with other (e.g. WP East Asia) projects. --Chinyin (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see your point after re-looking at your comment at home. Now I will try to think about if there is a yet a better solution.--Chinyin (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, but I guess you have a point after all. If the name of the project cannot express it all, the content of the project page may do so (and for example define Mongolia, Mongolian culture, history etc.). And while Ganaa is right that there is a stronger relationship between the Mongolian and the Central Asiatic cultures, taking Mongolia entirely out of East Asian context would not be desirable either, especially when dealing with southern Mongrolia. G Purevdorj (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Please try to focus on the topic itself. I'm not sure exactly what you had tried to say regarding the topic, but it's certainly not about one has tried to make a point or not (or whether maybe once had certain views), and the focus here should be about the naming itself, without the possible addition of other personal information etc. The editor below has already suggested possible solutions, both of which I may support (esp. the latter, as jointed task force; of course I also welcome other good solutions too). --Chinyin (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that my last comment was off-topic in any way: it indicated that I would accept WP:WikiProject Mongolia. On the front page of this project, the scope of the project (i.e., Mongol culture, history, language independent of country) could be stated. But before doing such a move, some more comments from other work group members would be welcome. What do you have to say, Ganaa and Yaan? G Purevdorj (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, it may look or seem on topic, but the statements were certainly formulated in a way to have extended meanings for extra info or private communication (and your last message is even more explicit by calling some members' names directly). Well, I may have tried such method in the past when someone did not try to talk, but in general such kind of personal communication should be avoided or discouraged in public pages including this one. But I think I can understand this as somehow a special case and also agree that the move should not occur without further comments or ideas. An example is to consider your use of "southern Mongolia" instead of usual one (i.e. Inner Mongolia) above. So do you think "WP Asia/Mongolia" (i.e. the alternative choice mentioned below) may somehow be a better one to overcome the issue? --Chinyin (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Turn this into a full blown wikiproject WP:WikiProject Mongolia -- this would solve the problem. I will note that Mongolia is covered by both East Asia and Central Asia wikiprojects, since internationally, the UN recognizes it as part of East Asia, and culturally, it is linked to both areas, significantly, ruling Korea and China for many years. The other solution is just list it as a joint work group shared between CentAsia and EAsia. To solve the naming of the workgroup, you can just call it wP:WikiProject_Asia/Mongolia_work_group - this would make it a joint task force between the three overarching wikiprojects, and solve the solution of naming, by just using Asia. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
This would be wise, unless you want to repeat what happened at Shishapangma following Yu Hai's October 26th move.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Nanshu to move it temporarily back to Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia/Mongolia work group as a stable version before a consensus is reached. I said Mongolian culture is related with the Turkic culture much more at the basic, material level. At least what the people eat and build their bodies from. This isn't an intention to fully deny the relations with East Asian cultures at other strata. Gantuya eng (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Does Turkic means "Central Asia"? Plus, should we use this logic: Mongols are related to Huns; Huns related to Ugaric; Ugaric related to Finno; then move this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Europe/Mongolia work group]? But this is not the critical point. The point is if we move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia/Mongolia work group now, people will not be positive in discussing whether we should have a divide-and-conqer (WikiProject Mongolia;WikiProject Inner Mongolia;WikiProject Buryatia) project or a all-in-one project (WikiProject All Mongols). It looks like Gantuya tends to include every Mongol Yastan under the state "Mongolia". I'm looking forward to Gantuya's opinion on whether to use divide-and-conqer (WikiProject Mongolia;WikiProject Inner Mongolia;WikiProject Buryatia) project or a all-in-one project (WikiProject All Mongols). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly who you really wanted to talk to with your second part (which does seem somehow misplaced). Always try to focus on the topic of the section when possible (and directly to the topic of the user you are replying to), which is pointed out by User:虞海 above as well. And indeed, Turkic is not equivalent to say (or only belongs to) Central Asia, as already mentioned by User:虞海 in the previous section; also it's better not to sound as if from these "levels" there is somehow a sharp contrast to East Asian culture. --Chinyin (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Ganaa is certainly not a supporter of what I elsewhere called divide-and-conquer, at least not in the Mongol realms. I don't see why Chinyin perceives Ganaa's and my response as off-topic. But be this as it may: having had a look at what Wikimedes pointed to, I will break off a discussion on content (which might be justified or not) and join with Nanshu in demanding that the move be undone before any further discussion can take place. Moving a project page without any previous consent is definitely not a good way to start a discussion. Whether or not Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia/Mongolia work group is the right designation for this group must be decided starting from the status quo. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Not exactly sure what you are talking about, but obviously you should have explicitly replied to User:虞海 regarding the so-called "divide-and-conquer", which my message above have never mentioned, nor expressed any opinion about it. Needless to say, both this part of your reply and second part of Gantuya's message I replied is off-topic in the way that the message itself that seems to be replied to does not contain information directly regarding it (obviously you could see it as well, so please don't point at me), and that part of Gantuya's message is more associated with the comments that I had made replied in the previous section than here. Nevertheless, I certainly agree that there should be some sort of consensus before moving a project page like this, and will also support the move back as a temporary measure that Nanshu had proposed (which I didn't see anyone had opposed above, so would be applicable to the majority rule of WP), unless there is already a better solution with consensus before the move back was actually taken. --Chinyin (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Then things are easy: we can simply make a WP:WikiProject Mongols or WP:WikiProject Greater Mongolia.
Here, I'd like to provide an alternative way, which is a conpromise between all-in-one and divide-and-conquer: to make a WP:WikiProject Mongols in general and move this page to WP:WikiProject Mongols/Mongolia workgroup. In this way, we may create WP:WikiProject Mongols/Inner Mongolia task force also.
––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 18:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Moving this work group to Central Asia is seriously problematic, if this workgroup adopts some of the fringe interpretations of "Mongolia" expressed here that include non-Central Asian states. Given the existence of the Tuva task force, and the possibility for more such task forces, WikiProject East Asia is a good place for a Mongolia workgroup with a disciplined national scope. Otherwise, I like Yu Hai's suggestion for a "WikiProject Mongols". ("Greater Mongolia" is a rather aggressive Wikipedia-promoted neologism) Shrigley (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Those problems could be solved by moving it to WP:WikiProject Asia, or just making it a separate wikiproject, as also suggested. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
WP Mongols might be a feasible solution, but this ought to be a different discussion. First move back! G Purevdorj (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
You can always try to carry the move-back action directly if there does not seem to be another better solution that appears to be getting consensus very soon. But indeed WP Mongols is a feasible solution that is worth discussion, and I also suggest to discuss it as a separate option (but can be performed in this section as well, independent of the proposed move-back action). --Chinyin (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The workgroup should not be moved to Central Asia without a consensus, given all of the problems outlined here with such a grouping. Shrigley (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
There was no consensus for the move in the first place and this issue is related to the members of said workgroup and their approach to editing Wikipedia, so I cannot agree with your reasoning. The only members who commented were Ganaa (move back) and I (move back, then discuss). There were two affiliates with a lot of edits in related issues who have used the workgroup as a platform before: Nanshu: move back, then discuss and 虞海: (probably) turn WP Mongols. (Chinyin has made a lot of Mongol-related histories and may want to use the workgroup/project as a platform in the future, so one might consider her/him.) But I cannot see that you have been involved in the workgroup or even related activities. And this decision pertains to the workgroup and its affiliates, not to unrelated editors e.g. of the East Asian Project. First move back, then decide whether it stays a workgroup or turns WP Mongols or WP Mongolia! G Purevdorj (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I moved this work group back to Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia/Mongolia work group. Keep in mind that this is a tentative action. What I did was to revert 虞海 (talk · contribs)'s move that lacked consensus. I just want to make sure that Wikipedia:WikiProject East Asia/Mongolia work group is NOT where this work group is to remain if we fail to reach a consensus. --Nanshu (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
A big problem is that the title was "Mongolia work group" rather than "Mongols work group", which if covering the latter under Central Asia, implies that Mongolia's territory should be expanded at the expense of China and Russia for their Mongol minorities, despite their not being Central Asian countries. Also, in the same vein, "Central Asia" and "East Asia" are places with customary [i.e. UN] definitions; they don't overlap well enough in this case with the nebulous concepts of "Central Asian people" or "East Asian people".
I moved this to WikiProject:Mongols as a better compromise default. "project Mongols" is still a little bit chauvinistic and expansionist, as opposed to Mongolia which has clear boundaries, but both pro-CA and pro-EA people (if the former more than the latter) can deal with it. Shrigley (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
WPAsia solves the problem of whither EAsia or CentAsia. We have WP:WikiProject Asia, and its project banner currently supports this workgroup. Being a separate wikiproject also solves that problem. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
It is hard to understand why you ignore the plain fact that the last revert was just procedural. Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia/Mongolia work group is where this work group/project resided for years while Wikipedia:WikiProject East Asia/Mongolia work group is a product of 虞海 (talk · contribs)'s unilateral action. That is the only reason. Which name was better was out of topic, which was clarified by G Purevdorj. My revert was based on consensus, but you renamed in disregard of the ongoing discussion. Such a disruptive action will not be tolerated. --Nanshu (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
No, you acted in disregard of the discussion, seeking to impose your preference when it was clear from the discussion that there is no existing consensus for "Central Asia" and some serious objections to it. Given that a consensus was forming on both sides around "Mongols" or a similar general title, it is a fairer name to default to than rather than CA or EA. All the participants in the discussion except 虞海 and you (who have both agreed to the idea of "Mongols" in previous statements) have edited or talked on this page since the move to "Mongols" without raising an objection to it. It's safe to say that we've moved past the fighting, and any threatening claims of "disruption" on your part are themselves disruptive uses of process with no useful aim. Shrigley (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Shrigley, please try to calm down. Although I agree with you about the new name itself, it's better to admit that "Central Asia" was the old name that had stayed for some time. If everyone talks nicely, it may sometimes get better and everyone will be happy. --Chinyin (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
In any case, everyone please try to talk nicely and follow the usual Wiki policy. It's always a good thing to create a nice Wiki environment. Thanks! --Chinyin (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As a history guy, I prefer Wikipedia:WikiProject Mongols. The pre-modern history of nomadic people is best captured in terms of groups of people rather than territories. Plan B is Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia/Mongolia work group. I oppose Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia/Mongolia work group because Mongols had more in common with Central Asian people than those in East Asia. --Nanshu (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

redirects

Currently Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_East_Asia/Mongolia_work_group and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Central_Asia/Mongolia_work_group redirect here. Plus Wikipedia:WikiProject_East_Asia/Mongolia_work_group and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Central_Asia/Mongolia_work_group redirect to the main page. Since the only project banner that supports this project/wg/tf is the WPAsia one, I think there should also be implemented redirects at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Asia/Mongolia_work_group and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Asia/Mongolia_work_group to redirect to this talk page, and the main page, respectively.

Also, WT:WikiProject Mongolia should be redirected here, instead of being some weird unattached talk page.

76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 07:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Reverted. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Huh? The WPAsia, or the WPMongolia? 76.65.128.198 (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I made WPMongols/MongoliaWG by move WPMongols to WPMongols/MongoliaWG. Now it's reverted by GPrevdorj, so I think I should CSD#6 the newly created WPMongols and move WPMongols/MongoliaWG back to WPMongols. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
At any rate, WT:WPMongolia should redirect here, and I think that the two WPAsia redirects should be created. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The wording at WP Mongols is more recent than the wording at the workgroup. You might want to preserve it, but probably you thought of that already. G Purevdorj (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Following the weird deletion and restoration of WPMongols... WP:WikiProject Mongolia is deleted, WP:WikiProject_Asia/Mongolia_work_group also doesn't exist. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Restored or established. --Chinyin (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Main page content

What is presented as Mongol culture in Chinese exhibitions, on the Chinese TV etc. is quite distinct from Mongol culture; it is rather kitsch to prove the unification and harmony of China. In this sense I cannot see that Zhonghua truly includes Mongol culture, even though there are researchers and also some administrators that embrace Mongol culture and try to effect its inclusion. Moreover, just including China and Russia to the exclusion of Afghanistan (which does not particularly embrace its Mongol population either), Kirgizstan and even countries of migration such as the US, Czech, Korea and Japan does not seem appropriate. On the other hand, there are four major administrations that do (or at least officially should) promote Mongol culture: first and foremost Mongolia, the only administration with state status. Just because of this fact, it is quite inevitable that it gets a special status even within WP Mongols. Then, Buryatia, Kalmykia, Inner Mongolia. A barnstar relating to any of these would be quite acceptable. If it should exist independently from WP Mongols, that is, else it would constitute an artificial division. On the other hand, the barnstar of the Mongolian state can remain in place, for there is no project that independently of this one covers the Mongolian state, in opposition e.g. to China, which is covered by a national project.

As for naming conventions: a crucial component of Mongol culture is its language. A Mongol is, for example, not a person born from a Mongol and a Han parent grown up in Beijing who has a Chinese name, only knows Han culture and does not speak a word of any Mongolic language. The Chinese government is happy to assign such people a minority status, also because they are so wonderfully integrated. I won’t deny that e.g. code switching between a Mongol language and Chinese falls into the range of WP Mongols, but purely Mandarin-related naming conventions don’t.

G Purevdorj (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Naming it "Mongols" assumes only ethnography and will exclude geography. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
You can always create workgroups/taskforces for regional things, like TFGreaterMongolia, TFDiaspora, TFMongolEmpire, WGEthnicMongol, WGMongolia. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with above two comments that since the project is named "Mongols"', it should mainly focus on Mongol ethnography, no matter where they live. Nevertheless, we also have to admit that vast majority (>95%) Mongols nowadays live in the three countries - Mongolia, China, and Russia, and that's not due to migration or so, unlike the United States etc. Try to focus on Mongol ethnography itself, instead of government policy etc or towards certain country (or countries). It's not about anything related to the so-called "integration" or "harmony" or so, but their actual living in these countries/regions etc. Chinese may be included in naming conventions as around (or over) half of total Mongol population in the world can also (or only) speak Chinese; no matter how or why it is like so, we need to also show respect for them. Furthermore, there is no project or TF that currently independently covers the Mongolian state may not be used as a reason for including only the Mongolia barnstar for this project while ignoring or discarding barnstars for other countries. As suggested above, we can always create workgroups/taskforces for regional things, including WGMongolia, if needed. But this project should never be like (or give a feeling that) it is region-specific. --Chinyin (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Who appointed you the ultimate arbiter of Mongol-ness? Plenty of people who don't speak Mongolian identify as Mongol, especially in China. Also, if Mongolia has some "special status" of being the only Mongol sovereign state, so should China's Inner Mongolia for being the only explicitly Mongol autonomous region. China as a whole promotes the interests of its Mongol minority (regardless of whether you think it's "kitschy" or inauthentic), so such a barnstar is appropriate. The naming conventions for Chinese are relevant to this project because they relate to people and place names in Mongol (or formerly Mongol) areas in China. Shrigley (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
As far as their self-identification is concerned, you have some point, Qingley. Thoughts about kitsch are not entirely mine. I seem to remember that Enwall has written something in this vain. Your claim that "China as a whole promotes the interests of its Mongol minority" is a much more radical (and either naive or utterly partisan) claim than I have stated on this page so far. If you define these interests as equal to basic sinization (where less important traits of culture and attitude can be left to variation), I would not even disagree. But don't worry: we could go with self-identification - as long as it is expressed! If you have Mongols that have completely adapted to Russian or Han culture, there is very little that we could write about them, and these should be left to WP Russia and WP China, respectively. In any case, a definition of Mongols that does not take linguistic or cultural traits as a basis, but goes with arbitrary legal definitions (such as defining Manchu as distinct from Sibe) is not tenable. G Purevdorj (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I think no one should have a strong point or as a so-called "partisan" in WP. At least please try to behave like a Wikipedian as possible. In general, if everyone tries to follow usual WP policy (or try to behave like a Wikipedian) then anything like such would probably never occur. But I should always had sticked with the WP policy too, then any such problems may also be avoided. As for the self-identification thing, it's usually better to follow the identification they'd like to have for themselves so they will feel they have been respected (and others may also feel you have showed respect for them). However, in some cases (esp. when there may be possible disputes etc) we can try to do some comprised solution (such as using more general name, maybe with some extra notes or so), but still not to directly confront or knowingly ignore their self-identifications; no, not the so-called as long as it is expressed, but as long as their self-identification does make sense and generally being recognized by others. Linguistic or cultural traits is not the only thing to consider, but blood or other relationships are also important factors to be based on. From this sense, the distinctness of Manchu from Sibe may not be described as "arbitrary legal definitions", and they certainly cannot be considered as simply or unilaterally being forced to become so. However, there is also no need to (and should not) overdo such so-called "corrections" (besides may be a few spots that were found), unless one really becomes something like that. --Chinyin (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
You make a valid point that one may not state too much on behalf of other people. Your way to introduce barnstars, again somewhat modified by me, seems ok to me now. But not so the Chinese naming conventions. You can not really include anything at this point that could not at least be the object of some kind of Mongol(ian) studies, and something that purely pertains to the language used in Beijing is not. I could imagine a form of the article on Chinese naming conventions that relates to our project, but the current version does not, in any way. So linking to it on the main page (unless possibly as a page needing immediate attention) is not appropriate. As long as it does not distinctively relate to the rendering of Mongolian and Mongol names, it does not represent our project in any way. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it somehow again takes with (implicit) political reference, e.g. "the language used in Beijing". Whether the language has been used by such is not a problem, but language should never be considered as a patent of certain party or group. Taking the latter approach (i.e. being considered as patent of some) may also denote the holding of strong view or so, which should be avoided (similar for the modified wording about the barnstars). --Chinyin (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Culture and language are linked, and most individuals (as well as sociology and sociolinguistics) will support this statement. My statement was fairly descriptive: Mandarin as taught in schools is not Mandarin as spoken e.g. 200 km north of Shanghai or in northern Heilongjiang, even though there are Mandarin-speaking areas. The Jin dialect as spoken in Hohhot, for example, is relevant to WP Mongols (if peripheral), while Chinese naming conventions on a standardized, non-particularized scale are not. G Purevdorj (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, maybe you are kind of making fun or so by saying something like "Mandarin as taught in schools is not Mandarin as spoken .." But I have seen your point (and you may also hold a strong view as such). Chinese naming conventions may be modified or so if necessary with proper discussions in related pages, but that is a different issue from the inclusion of the naming convention itself here. --Chinyin (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not making any fun. I am a linguist. If Chinese naming conventions includes e.g. the conventions for the romanization of Mongolian words, it would relate to WP Mongols in some way. Likewise, Chinese as spoken in particular parts of Inner Mongolia in its relation to Mongolian is. Mandarin (as the standard language of China) is not - there is nothing that WP Mongols could add to that. G Purevdorj (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It is of course that Chinese naming conventions won't include romanization of Mongolian language words, but it will include romanization of words of Chinese language, which is also used as written language by Inner Mongols. Note that this is not a wiki with spoken content, but Wikipedia with written contents. The standard written Chinese used by these Chinese language-speaking people (esp. in the north) is the same. The Chinese naming convention is mostly about the written language, not the various spoken dialects or so. As a general, it will work with them. --Chinyin (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
If there is nothing particular to Mongols within the written Chinese standard, it does not specifically relate to them and should not be included. As I said, WP Tibet (which is not about a country either and has a lot of Tibetan nationals who can speak Chinese) does not include these naming conventions as well. G Purevdorj (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
In the absence of a particular barnstar, dropping "Next to a barnstar dedicated to the state of Mongolia, it is especially the barnstars for China and Russia that apply" is quite difficult to accept, but yes, I can let that be for now. G Purevdorj (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It is not to say they are quite difficult to accept, but there are already less political-sensative and more general wording, so such text is unnecessary for the barnstars. There is no need to be so insisting or picky on particular wording. Not to mention that barnstars should be an enjoyable section or place for everyone. --Chinyin (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, but even if this link is not particular to these Mongols (but certainly highly applicable to them), why you insist on deleting this very link in the section? There are for example other links there that may be even more unnecessary according to this standard, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mongolia, which should also be considered as region-specific thing and as a whole not very useful for the overall project. --Chinyin (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Most things specific to Mongolia as a region are relevant, including Inner Mongolia. But something that is not specific to Inner Mongolia, but rather to China is indeed not very interesting for the project. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, you are talking about the term "Mongolia" as a region. But it's undoubtful and admitted that the more common usage of the term Mongolia refers to the state, or the region roughly corresponds to that state and excludes Inner Mongolia. In fact, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mongolia belongs to Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting by country, so it clearly refers to the country, and it is specific to the state of Mongolia. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mongolia may be relevant to some group that is specific to the state of Mongolia, but its usefulness by itself in this broader project as a whole is highly questionable in the above standard. --Chinyin (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Happily, the country Mongolia is included as a whole into the region Mongolia and thus as such relevant to this project (a point I keep on making), while this does not apply to the country China. G Purevdorj (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think you are playing on the term, aren't you? OK, but even if accepting the above relatively uncommon usage of region Mongolia including Inner Mongolia (and country Mongolia), the bilingual standards and usages etc (in both Mongolian and Chinese languages) in its region are certainly specific to Inner Mongolia (and not to the country China), so the Chinese naming convention is certainly relevant and is supposed to be included (in addition to the Mongolian naming convention) to this project, particularly when even less significant or useful link such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mongolia (specific to country Mongolia) is included in the section. --Chinyin (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mongols/Archive_1&oldid=1239441258"