Update character count status message on "Rich text - 1000 character limit" paragraph type

[davidmpickett]

Description

Relates to #16659.

#16659 provides new guidance on how the status message on character count status messages should be worded. This PR would update wording on the Paragraph Type: Rich text - 1000 character limit.

This came out of feedback from the VBA Regional Office CMS collab cycle. The Facilities team is using the paragraph type on VBA Centralized Content.

However, the paragraph type is primarily used on Public Websites products:

Testing done

Screenshots

QA steps

What needs to be checked to prove this works?
What needs to be checked to prove it didn't break any related things?
What variations of circumstances (users, actions, values) need to be checked?

As user uid with user_role

1. Do this
   • Validate that
2. Then
   • Validate that
3. Then validate Acceptance Criteria from issue
   • a
   • b
   • c

Definition of Done

• Documentation has been updated, if applicable.
• Tests have been added if necessary.
• Automated tests have passed.
• Code Quality Tests have passed.
• Acceptance Criteria in related issue are met.
• Manual Code Review Approved.
• If there are field changes, front end output has been thoroughly checked.

Select Team for PR review

• CMS Team
• Public websites
• Facilities
• User support
• Accelerated Publishing

Is this PR blocked by another PR?

• DO NOT MERGE

Does this PR need review from a Product Owner

• Needs PO review

CMS user-facing announcement

Is an announcement needed to let editors know of this change?

• Yes, and it's written in issue ____ and queued for publication.
  • Merge and ping the UX writer so they are ready to publish after deployment
• Yes, but it hasn't yet been written
  • Don't merge yet -- ping the UX writer to write and queue content
• No announcement is needed for this code change.
  • Merge & carry on unburdened by announcements

[davidmpickett]

My first commit only updated the message on the Rich text - 1000 character limit, but this would have led to the Reusable Q&A content type having inconsistent character counters.

My second commit changed the message on the other relevant field.

[davidmpickett]

Oh no, this is way more complicated than I originally thought. Centralized Content edit view is very strange. Abandoning this endeavor.