In D1808#92243, @Nescio wrote:

How about “When in a formation, Spearmen ...”?

@Stan Is the rebasing the only issue, or something that should be done before the review may continue? If it’s the only remaining issue, I can probably take care of that manually while merging.

In D1808#91032, @Nescio wrote:

What about squad, squadron, battalion, brigade, party, company, or regiment?

Those have the same problem as "formation" and potentially add more confusion.

In D2110#91004, @elexis wrote:

as a translator this will reduce to a half the number of strings that contain tags

But if tags were all on the same line, it would reduce it even further, so that the font only has to be translated once per font?

Then let’s add quotes to those similar lines missing them.

OK, I think we can merge once the + in +40 is back

What about squad, squadron, battalion, brigade, party, company, or regiment?

In D2006#90946, @Nescio wrote:

Units have different gather rates for resource subtypes, therefore it makes sense to mention both the subtype (what you gather) and the resource (what you gather) in the tooltip.

In D2110#90945, @Nescio wrote:

I have no strong opinion on the tag changes; if someone else agrees with them, let’s go ahead. Otherwise, let’s keep them as before to minimize string changes.

In mark-up languages it's customary to close tags on the same line, e.g. LaTeX \textbf{lorem}, HTML <b>ipsum</b>, MarkDown **dolor**, hence my preference for [font="sans-bold-14"]sit[font="sans-14"] in this text file, which also makes it easier to see if a tag is forgotten.

In D1808#90733, @Nescio wrote:

Before I can update this, we still need to find a proper format for the formation and garrison aura types.

Maybe what we need first is to have two completely different words to refer to (1) formation as in a way a group of units can organize themselves and (2) formation as in a specific group of units. For example, if we used ‘group’ for the latter, “Same group [class] [change] [attributes]” may work.

A group is an arbitrary selection of entities, which can be defined by e.g. Ctrl+1 and selected by pressing 1 or clicking on the group panel at the left of the screen.

In D2006#90693, @Nescio wrote:

So basically you prefer [verb] for [resource] instead of [verb] [subtype] for [resource]?

I meant what @Freagarach said, and as I suspected is a no-go.

I’ve left a comment regarding font tags.

I’ve left a few comment. However, I’m not in a position to review the changes as a whole, I unsure whether or not the element removals are OK. Please, add other reviewers for those.

In D1806#90158, @Nescio wrote:

We can post-pone this discussion and merge as is.

If you mean whether or not classes should be capitalized […]

https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP22632

https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP22631

In D1613#75586, @bb wrote:

For me (as programmer) this isn't a bug in our code, but it is a bug in the translation

Great idea!

@Nescio What would you think about calling it ‘tidal island’? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_island)

In D1547#74624, @Itms wrote:

I am afraid [this] is going to cause big issues for translators

If no one opposes to removing the historic text that is not expected to be in auras at the moment, then I guess the only remaining thing is removing .0 from numbers, right?

In D1808#87907, @Nescio wrote:

garrison type: Hosting [class] [change] [attributes]

E.g. “Hosting warship +10% health.” Would the uninformed player understand that means the hero is to be garrisoned?

formation type: Formation [class] [change] [attributes] or Accompanying [class] [change] [attributes]

E.g. “Formation spearmen +10% health.” Wouldn't that imply all spearmen in any formation, rather than only spearmen in the formation containing the aura-entity (e.g. hero)?
E.g. “Accompanying spearmen +10% health.” Again, how is the player supposed to know that means only spearmen in the hero's formation?

In D1808#87832, @Nescio wrote:

• formation, garrison, and garrisoned aura description format.

In D1808#87832, @Nescio wrote:

Things to be decided upon before I'll update this patch:

• +1 or +1.0 armour?
• should classes be capitalized or not?

In D1807#87716, @Nescio wrote:

Also, the question remains whether it's right to remove the history flavour sentence from these catafalque aura descriptions (other aura types don't have that).

So perhaps it would be best to settle upon a generic scheme for those and then apply it?

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1808#86475 applies here as well.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1808#86475 applies here as well.

I’ve left a few comments, but I must say I love these changes overall.

Updated not to touch titles, and include the requested ‘4 → Four’ change.

Feedback applied.

I really like the change, I just have some minor feedback for specific lines.

In order to move things forward, I’ve simplified the diff to change only ‘cavalry soldiers → cavalry’, which was the scope of the original report.

I agree with the word change. However, since this change affects filenames beyond the specific word change suggested, I’ll let people more familiar with unit filename conventions give their approval.

Fixed the plural call by repeating the English string. Notice that the first parameter of the function will never be used in English.

markForPluralTranslation is for when strings have the same content, and only change for grammatical number (e.g. singular words become plural).

Damn, you have a point in that the markForPluralTranslation function in the new code needs to have the first parameter also passed as second parameter. So the patch requires changes for sure.

I think a comment is necessary to prevent someone from accidentally reverting to something in the lines of the original code to "simplify" it.