PLURAL for pt-br

Jump to navigation Jump to search

CLDR is a reviewed resource with a formal process. Linux distributions use it as a reliable source. For now, I am not inclined to want to change it in MediaWiki and deviate from CLDR. Please appeal with CLDR. If you *are* correct, that should be clear soon.

Siebrand20:03, 17 November 2009

It doesn't actually say anything about pt-br, just for pt, whatever it means.

Nike08:44, 18 November 2009

Then you please process this request. I said what I thought about it. It's easy enough, and I indicated that I will not take responsibility for doing what was asked.

Siebrand08:52, 18 November 2009

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.


You can view and copy the source of this page.

Return to Thread:Support/PLURAL for pt-br/reply.

Helder, I apologise for not following up directly with you on this, but the plural rule for pt-BR is already correct in CLDR. The question came up while they were processing the pt change. I confirmed to them that pt-BR was the same. The change went in on CLDR 1.8 and must be live now. This can be confirmed at CLDR Language Plural Rules#pt (pt at CLDR is the fallback, and comes from pt-BR).

Hamilton Abreu21:49, 16 May 2010

So this update can be made also for pt-br?

Helder15:10, 29 May 2010

If this comes out right it already has been done:

  • 0 (0 words)
  • 1 (1 word)
  • 2 (2 words)
Hamilton Abreu22:15, 6 June 2010

Plural for pt and pt-br is the same. That's what it should be, right?

Siebrand22:22, 6 June 2010