Thanks for the suggestions and criticism, JordiJan!
I have made the changes to the Catalan version of the Note report page that you pointed out. They will be available soon.
As to your cross-language suggestions, here they are, in terms that might be useful for the translators using the Babel application:
1st suggestion
Redundancy in the snippets
m_32_onebill |
m_32_nbills +
m_32_billinfo |
m_32_billinfo_europa:
"Note
<img $image> $serial has been entered once. This is a
$value Euro note from
$year."
"Note
<img $image> $serial has been entered
$rows times. This is a
$value Euro note from
$year."
$image is a little icon showing the value (for example,
), which is repeated in the next sentence as text (
$value, in the example, would be the number "50"), so this is in fact redundant. I guess that the origin of the problem might be that the first sentence and the second ones are from two different snippets, and whoever created them in the first place didn't realize there would be a repetition.
My opinion: I believe there isn't any advantage in having this value duplicated. So the second sentence should be rephrased. See more below.
2nd suggestion
Misleading date in the snippets
m_32_billinfo |
m_32_billinfo_europa (first sentence thereof):
"This is a
$value Euro note from
$year."
"from
$year" (in English as well as probably in all other translations so far) may be interpreted as "printed in
$year" or even "commissioned in
$year", when in fact it means "dated
$year". It is the year that banknotes with that particular design entered circulation (2002 for the entire first series, and then several different years for the Europa series: 2013
, 2014
, 2015
, 2017
, and 2019
).
My opinion: the banknote year should
not be
replaced by anything else, like the name of the series. It is a visible element on the banknote, that is relevant for all scholars and collectors, and is always mentioned in notaphily catalogues. I would approve to replace the word "from" with the word "dated", though. Taking this together with the previous suggestion, here is how the first sentence of the above-mentioned snippets should look like:
"This is a Euro note dated
$year."
Note: I know that developers haven't been applying any non-essential non-maintenance fixes but, in case there's someone doing it, here's a suggestion for completeness: including
also the series name, as follows:
"This is a Euro note from the
$series series"
(for 2002 notes)
"This is a Euro note from the
$series series, dated
$year."
(for Europa and subsequent notes)
3rd suggestion
Arguably redundant / useless printer code (first letter only) in the snippet
m_32_billinfo_europa (second sentence thereof):
"The printer code is
$shortcode."
It is true that every Europa note shows the same initial letter for both its serial number and printer code. Therefore, theoretically, the sentence shown could be discarded.
My opinion: although this sentence does not add any information to the knowledgeable user, it might be useful for those who don't know the system. Also, like the year, it is a visual element on the banknote. Finally, we have no idea how will the next series be. So, for the sakes of thoroughness and consistency, I wouldn't change anything here.
4th suggestion
Arguably misleading phrase (snippet
M_ENTERED_DATE):
"Entered Date"
In most translations, this is rendered as something that, if translated back to English, would be closer to "Date entered", or "Date of registration".
My opinion: any of the two above phrases ("Date entered", or "Date of registration") sound a little better than "Entered Date", at least to my foreign ears. How would a native write?
)
and now Macedonia del Norte shows up where it should...
