Ordinal numbers are wrong

[qwertasdfg]

Hey,

some of the ordinal numbers stating the rank of a player are wrong.

It says 21th, 22th and so on. The exceptions for ordinals not ending in -th are only made for 1st, 2nd, 3rd when they should be made for all numbers ending in 1,2,3 except for those ending in 11, 12, 13.
Not sure if that is changeable via the translation system, searches for 'st' or 'th' give way too many results.

Would be nice, if that could be changed. I don't think the problem is there for other languages, but I don't know for sure. But especially the English texts should be correct, imo, as English is used as lingua franca.
Also, it may be helpful if the searching results were ordered by the length of the string or something, so that you have a chance of finding those short strings.

[dhnyny]

This is a site-wide error that should be corrected.

Like so much else in English, ordinal numbers are irregular and strange. Here are the rules, for those who don't know:

• To create the ordinal form of any number ending in 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 0, add -th (e.g., 9th, 58th, 100th, 4387th).
• To create the ordinal form of 1 or any number ending in 1 other than 11, add -st (e.g., 1st, 51st, 1001st).
• To create the ordinal form of 2 or any number ending in 2 other than 12, add -nd (e.g., 2nd, 52nd, 1002nd).
• To create the ordinal form of 3 or any number ending in 3 other than 13, add -rd (e.g., 3rd, 53rd, 1003rd).
• To create the ordinal form of 11, 12, or 13, or any number ending in 11, 12, or 13, add -th (i.e., 11th, 412th, 8013th).

If these rules are easy to implement on BGA for rankings and other places where ordinal numbers appear, they should be implemented. If it is not easy, I suggest eliminating ordinal suffixes altogether because incorrect suffixes are worse than no suffixes at all. Since another way to indicate that a number is part of a ranked series is to add "#" or "No." before the number, that would be an acceptable alternative. That is to say:

• • Correct and ideal: 1551st
  • Acceptable: 1551 or No. 1551 or #1551
  • Incorrect and unacceptable: 1551th

[Liallan]

because incorrect suffixes are worse than no suffixes at all.

I would disagree with that. I would love for these to be correct, but it's not exactly up there at the top of my wish list. The incorrect ones sound a little odd, but I wouldn't call it "worse" than not having anything. Even as anal as I am.

But then, I've been hanging around the internet in a global way for around 20 years, and I guess I don't find this any more odd than the differences of British spellings and such.

[Een]

"Unacceptable" is quite a strong word, language is quite a malleable thing, and evolves continually through usage.

This is actually much more complex than just English. BGA is translated in many languages, and ordinal numbers are probably wrong in many of them.

So there is certainy something to do, but getting into that may be like opening pandora's box. Not sure when we'll be able to look into it, but noted.

[eoc]

This is actually much more complex than just English. BGA is translated in many languages, and ordinal numbers are probably wrong in many of them.

That's no argument against the suggestion of trying to avoid using them where possible, though, is it? With a background in internationalization, I'd agree that using the acceptable alternative proposed above seems like the better choice as opposed to trying to correctly implement ordinal numbers into the framework for all supported locales.