Add missing fallback texts in various views

[BatJan]

Prerequisites

• I have added steps to test this contribution in the description below

Description

In this PR I have added fallback texts in several views where one key has been missing in order to not spam the PR tracker too much with these kind of PR - It's done to ensure that in case a translation key is missing then we at least show an English fallback text 😃

[umbrabot]

Hi there @BatJan, thank you for this contribution! 👍

While we wait for one of the Core Collaborators team to have a look at your work, we wanted to let you know about that we have a checklist for some of the things we will consider during review:

• It's clear what problem this is solving, there's a connected issue or a description of what the changes do and how to test them
• The automated tests all pass (see "Checks" tab on this PR)
• The level of security for this contribution is the same or improved
• The level of performance for this contribution is the same or improved
• Avoids creating breaking changes; note that behavioral changes might also be perceived as breaking
• If this is a new feature, Umbraco HQ provided guidance on the implementation beforehand
• The contribution looks original and the contributor is presumably allowed to share it

Don't worry if you got something wrong. We like to think of a pull request as the start of a conversation, we're happy to provide guidance on improving your contribution.

If you realize that you might want to make some changes then you can do that by adding new commits to the branch you created for this work and pushing new commits. They should then automatically show up as updates to this pull request.

Thanks, from your friendly Umbraco GitHub bot 🤖 🙂

[mikecp]

Hi @BatJan ,

Wow 28 files ! I leave that one for a day I come in earlier 😅

[BatJan]

@mikecp Yeah initially I thought it was "only" 10... but now we're upt o 30... 😅

It's views where 1 or 2 fallbacks have been missing but it of course takes quite some time to review. Just thought it might was better to do it in one PR to not spam the issue tracker more than I already have with the other mappings 😅

But let me know if it's better to make them 1 by 1 instead 👍🏻

[mikecp]

Hey @BatJan , I don't know how much more you still have to push 😅, but if there is still a reasonable amount of them, I would leave this one as-is but for the next ones, I would suggest an "in between solution" where we would for example have max. 15-20 files per PR.

I think this is then still reviewable in a "timely" manner but avoids the "PR spam of mappings" that you were afraid of😉
Although those are good for our merge stats, ask @nathanwoulfe what he thinks of it 😁, he beat me to it last night 😭😋

I any case, many thanks for the effort of going through it all !! 👍

[nathanwoulfe]

Haha, I spent a good chunk of time clicking this morning. I don't mind the lots of small PRs, easier to manage than giant ones (although since these changes are all similar and straightforward to review, bigger PRs aren't painful either).

Long winded way for me to say I'm not super worried either way. Lots of small ones does do good things to our merge stays tho 🙄

[BatJan]

@mikecp There will be no more commits for this one - And I agree that keeping the amount lower in case I spot something general like this another time so that it maybe 10-15 files pr. PR instead. 30 more PR's would feel awkward to "spam" the issue tracker with where 3 more would be OK for instance.

But I will leave this PR for now and hope it's not too hard to have it merged once you find time to go through it - Thank you for all the effort reviewing! 🙌🏻

@nathanwoulfe Yeah I noticed 😂 Bit of a tedious task but feels good knowing that most fallback texts are now in place ❤️ Will keep future PR's smaller - Promise 😃