r59043 MediaWiki - Code Review archive

Repository:MediaWiki
Revision:< r59042‎ | r59043 | r59044 >
Date:00:02, 14 November 2009
Author:siebrand
Status:deferred (Comments)
Tags:
Comment:
Fix for incomplete PLURAL
Modified paths:
  • /trunk/extensions/Maps/Maps.i18n.php (modified) (history)

Diff [purge]

Index: trunk/extensions/Maps/Maps.i18n.php
——@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
2828 'maps_geocoding_failed_for' => 'The following {{PLURAL:$2|address|addresses}} could not be geocoded and {{PLURAL:$2|has|have}} been omitted from the map:
2929 $1',
3030 'maps_unrecognized_coords' => 'The following coordinates were not recognized: $1.',
31 - 'maps_unrecognized_coords_for' => 'The following coordinates were not recognized and {{PLURAL:$2|has|have}} been omitted from the map:
 31+ 'maps_unrecognized_coords_for' => 'The following {{PLURAL:$2|coordinate was|coordinates were}} not recognized and {{PLURAL:$2|has|have}} been omitted from the map:
3232 $1',
3333 'maps_map_cannot_be_displayed' => 'The map cannot be displayed.',
3434

Comments

#Comment by Jeroen De Dauw (talk | contribs)   18:36, 14 November 2009

Hey,

I don't agree here. Since coordinates appear as pairs, you will always use the plural, and not the singular. So even when you display only one point, you will be working with coordinates (one lat, one long).

Do you agree? If so, please revert this change.

Cheers

#Comment by Siebrand (talk | contribs)   19:41, 14 November 2009

I agree conditionally. Please tell me if the following assumption is correct: This message will appear if any of the given long/lat pairs cannot be properly processed, and $1 contain the complete pair(s) that could not be processed.

In that case this message should probably reformulated to something like "Because one or more coordinates could not be processed, the following points have been omitted from the map". Maybe "point" should be "item" if it can alse be an area or polygon, or whatever.

#Comment by Jeroen De Dauw (talk | contribs)   19:47, 14 November 2009

Your assumption is correct.

I'd stick with the current formulation though. Your message might be more exact, but I think it's less clear for most users.

Status & tagging log