[injury log]

Sure thing- actually, I can list all of the changes needed to make all injury items read properly:

First, just in case it's helpful to someone trying to make sense of my suggestions below, in the standard injuries.txt file, the diagnosis [%injury] and the description [%injurydescription] only differ, potentially, in two ways: %injurydescription includes an indefinite article if needed, while %injury sometimes specifies a body part in brackets. e.g.:

%injury - torn labrum (shoulder)
%injurydescription- a torn labrum

%injury - back spasms
%injurydescription - back spasms

I don't need to see '(shoulder)' in news items, and it seems the purpose of the %injurydescription field is to get the indefinite article right in news articles, so I'm now absolutely sure it's meant to be used almost throughout the xml file.

The following items use the diagnosis field, and can all produce the 'a back spasms' problem. Just doing a find-replace, replacing 'a [%injury]' with '[%injurydescription]' will fix them. NB the indefinite article ('a') needs to be removed from english.xml, or else there will be a lot of 'a a fractured femur' news stories. I've included the lead-in wording from english.xml:

using %injury [diagnosis field]
17580 'result of a ...'
18480: 'was diagnosed as a ...'
18481: 'day-to-day with a...'
18482: 'suffered a...'
18483: 'sustained a...'
18484: 'due to a ...'
18486: 'suffered a ...'
18488: 'attempts to shrug off a ...'
18489: 'with a ...'
18490: 'suffered a ...'
18494: 'has a ...'
18495: 'suffered a ...'
18496: 'sustained a ...'
17582: 'has a ...'
18458: 'diagnosis is a ...'
18462: 'diagnosed as a ...'
18467: 'developed a ...'
18468: 'revealed the injury to be a ...'
18469: 'suffered a ...'
18470: 'suffered a ...'
18471: 'suffered a ...'
18473: 'sustained a ...'
18474: 'suffered a ...'
18475: 'suffered a ...'
18476: 'with a ...'
18478: 'with a ...'
18479: 'with a ...'
19033: 'has a ...' [off-field]
19034: 'with a ...' [off-field]
19035: 'with a ...' [off-field]
19036: 'suffered a ...' [off-field]
19037: 'with a ...' [off-field]
19038: 'with a ...' [off-field]
19039: 'suffered a ...' [off-field]
19040: 'suffered a ...' [off-field]

-------

The following do not use an indefinite article, but still use the diagnosis field. They can produce lines like 'after suffering broken tibia'. Here '[%injury]' should simply be replaced with '[%injurydescription]':

17756 'diagnosis of ...'
17755 'diagnosis was ...'
17747 'reporting the injury as ...'
17748 'after suffering ...'
17750: 'was diagnosed as ...'
17759: 'diagnosis was ...' [illness]
18472:' due to ...'

There is one xml entry that uses the diagnosis field, and which will read incorrectly if changed- must be left as is:

18477: 'play through his ...'

And I think this one should be fine either way, since it's a headline:

18329: "Star DTD with [%injury capital]"


The following use %injurydescription, and should be fine as is:

17757: 'suffered ...'
17746 'suffered ...'
17749: 'result of ...'
17667: 'diagnosed with ...' [illness]
17668: 'diagnosed with ...' [illness]
17758: 'suffering from ...' [illness]
17730: 'with ...'
17732: 'after suffering ...'
17733: 'with ...'
17734: 'with ...'
17583: 'has ...' [off-field]
17769: 'after suffering ...' [off-field]

That's the complete list, I believe. Sometimes the off-field news items combine text from the off-field file with the injury diagnosis or description, and I haven't really thought about whether that could produce problems if changed- I doubt it, though. There's one typo as well in the injuries.txt file: 'a inguinal hernia' should be 'an inguinal hernia'.