I just realized that it would make way more sense to update most of these messages after T373850: [Refactor] Use the ReferenceEditPanel in the SetExtendsContentDialog is done. So would prioritize moving that code to Cite before working on these messages.

Change #1076001 had a related patch set uploaded (by WMDE-Fisch; author: WMDE-Fisch):

[mediawiki/extensions/Cite@master] Adjust messages related to sub-referencing

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1076001

Change #1076001 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/Cite@master] Adjust messages related to sub-referencing

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1076001

Hi! Thank you for working on this feature!

Some questions:

• Can we please remove the comma before "is missing" in the two messages changed in https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/Cite/ /1076001/1/modules/ve-cite/i18n/en.json ? It's a restrictive clause, so the comma is definitely needed (at least in English).
• Can they further be modified to say "to which", like this: "The reference to which the details below are linked to is missing"? It will be easier to understand and to translate.¹
• Is the small difference between those two messages intentional? One says "that these details" and the other says "that the details below". Their qqq is a bit different, but it doesn't make it entirely clear why the wording of the messages themselves is different. Perhaps it's explained in the Google Doc that is explained in the description, but I cannot view it. If it's not intentional, they should probably be the same.

¹ Some people say that ending a clause with a preposition in English is wrong. I don't think it's wrong; I just think that in this case it's harder to read and understand.

Change #1076763 had a related patch set uploaded (by WMDE-Fisch; author: WMDE-Fisch):

[mediawiki/extensions/Cite@master] Update some messages for the sub-ref use case

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1076763

In T373876#10185018, @Amire80 wrote:

Hi! Thank you for working on this feature!

Some questions:

• Can we please remove the comma before "is missing" in the two messages changed in https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/Cite/ /1076001/1/modules/ve-cite/i18n/en.json ? It's a restrictive clause, so the comma is definitely needed (at least in English).
• Can they further be modified to say "to which", like this: "The reference to which the details below are linked to is missing"? It will be easier to understand and to translate.¹
• Is the small difference between those two messages intentional? One says "that these details" and the other says "that the details below". Their qqq is a bit different, but it doesn't make it entirely clear why the wording of the messages themselves is different. Perhaps it's explained in the Google Doc that is explained in the description, but I cannot view it. If it's not intentional, they should probably be the same.

---

¹ Some people say that ending a clause with a preposition in English is wrong. I don't think it's wrong; I just think that in this case it's harder to read and understand.

Hej, there's an update to the text now see https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1076763 I hope that helps a bit already.

@Amire80

Is the small difference between those two messages intentional

Yes, we aligned the text a bit, but I also tried to make it a bit more clear in the qqq.json. The message for the reference list could address several re-uses with different details, where the ( main ) reference is missing. The other message is always just about one re-use.

Change #1076763 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/Cite@master] Update some messages for the sub-ref use case

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1076763