CLDR language names in Macedonian

From Support
Jump to navigation Jump to search

CLDR language names in Macedonian

Hello Siebrand. I would like to ask you if there is any possible way that I can get the list of names of all languages in Maedonian from CLDR. I see that they are used here (Special:SupportedLanguages) and in other places but many of them are completely wrong as the translator (whoever it was) had no idea about what those languages are called in Macedonian, and he even broke many orthographic rules while doing so. Plus he left a lot untranslated. It is a complete shame that we should suffer this and I would like to get the file at CLDR where they are contained (I really can't find it anywhere there) and rework the list properly and completely (we already have such full lists for reference on The other problem is that the people at CLDR are rather distrustful when dealing with such big changes, but hey, it's not my fault that the guy had no idea how to say 'Aragonese' in Macedonian, among many others. So my request would be, if you can help me get the file and to help me with getting in commited back on CLDR with any influence which you may have there. Tell me if you can do any of this and if you need some further assistance. I would be very grateful if you can help me with this one.

B. Jankuloski14:17, 6 July 2010

Used translations are these. As they are directly imported from CLDR 1.8.1, you have to translate/correct those at Patches to the MediaWiki CLDR extension with regards to language names are not accepted. I am not familiar with the process CLDR uses.

Siebrand19:27, 6 July 2010

In case you haven't found the CLDR language name data file for Macedonian on CLDR yet, here are two links - the current data file and the list in the survey tool. According to the website 'the survey tool is now closed', but I don't really know what that means - I don't find their information very easy to follow. It appears that the key to getting things accepted on CLDR is to refer to reputable, on-line sources for the information. This is not always easy to do, as I have found with trying to get the plural rules for Welsh corrected. I have even got postings from the Bedwyr Language Institute in support of my bug request, but it has still not been processed! Having said that, if there is no on-line source for verification, getting the support of language experts based at a university is probably best. Best wishes.

Lloffiwr18:41, 24 July 2010

"The survey tool is now closed" means that they have closed and published the last release (back in Feb, I seem to recall) and that their survey tool is not yet accepting suggestions for the next release.

Their information is difficult to follow, the documentation is nowhere to be found when you need it, I can never locate documentation that I've seen before and know exists somewhere, the search feature is useless.

But all of this is Ok when compared to their survey tool. I have found no bugs in the tool, but the whole process is impossible, because you do not know who suggested what, cannot clear doubts with other people, and they allow foreigners to make changes to languages they know little about.

Countless definitions of PLURAL are simply wrong, but they are in possession of documents written by foreign experts that say otherwise.

That pretty much sums CLDR up, as far as I'm concerned.

Hamilton Abreu06:08, 25 July 2010

You may be right on all counts, but I suggest that you document all the claims (for example on Talk:CLDR), get a group of other users together to verify and also document issues, and then contact the CLDR administrators with it. There are issues, I/we know, but it's all that we can rely on so far. We do not want to duplicate the effort that is being done at CLDR. Also see Todo for some long term goals I formulated a long time ago...

Siebrand13:37, 25 July 2010

I wish I had the availability to rise up to the challenge. Maybe in a few months...

Hamilton Abreu16:34, 26 July 2010

I really hope you find the time. I would love this issue tackled once and for all. Feel free to offer them a cooperation and/or inclusion into our platform. We'd love to be the forefront for CLDR, so only validation would have to happen there.

Siebrand19:29, 26 July 2010

I started CLDRs ksh locale with a bug tracker request about a year ago, asking for the locale to be created, and access to the survey tool. Later, I used the survey tool to supply (parts of the) data. Some (quite essential) parts cannot be entered in the survey tool (yet) so I also created a set of tracker items. None of them were processed in time for the current release, if I recall that right. Missing data from those tracker items prohibited entering quite some survey tool items. Also missing documentation, and bugs in the survey tool prohibited entering some more items in the survey tool, or to correct spelling errors, etc.

I would like to support CLDR doing better. As long as their survey tool is usually closed most of the time (I assume while they are enhancing it programmatically) I see little more thyt could be done than collecting single suggested minor amendments somewhere else, however. Collecting large portions of data elsewhere does imho not make sense, because it duplicates labour; so better wait for the survey tool to become available the next time and do it only once.

With the given processing model, I believe, it will normally take at least 3 years, until a missing locale would be rather complete - not necessarily bug-free of course.

I shall collect CLDR data to be amended in Talk:CLDR, but things not supported by the survey tool, suggested enhancements of data structures, the survey tool, the workflow, etc. should imho go directly to their tracker asap.

Purodha Blissenbach00:32, 27 July 2010