[00:00:27] No, but I'm an admin (for now, [[WF:Project chat]]) (re @ItzSwirlz: actually yeah it would become a duplicate of Z20231 - is speedy deletion a thing on wikifunctions?) [00:01:35] Otherwise [[WF:RFD]] (re @ItzSwirlz: actually yeah it would become a duplicate of Z20231 - is speedy deletion a thing on wikifunctions?) [00:01:35] It wouldn’t be a duplicate if it also checked whether the lexeme was Spanish. (re @ItzSwirlz: actually yeah it would become a duplicate of Z20231 - is speedy deletion a thing on wikifunctions?) [00:01:59] Fair (re @Al: It wouldn’t be a duplicate if it also checked whether the lexeme was Spanish.) [00:04:10] Not that I’d encourage a separate function for each combination of language and part of speech 😏 (re @Feeglgeef: Fair) [00:04:36] I'll leave it empty for now, if the server needs a bit more storage space we can delete it [00:05:39] Deleted things are stored anyway (re @ItzSwirlz: I'll leave it empty for now, if the server needs a bit more storage space we can delete it) [00:05:47] Just not in the face of users [00:06:19] Just like making that Google Doc with the letter "a" and forcing Google to keep it forever 😂️️️ [00:06:53] Maybe we’ll re-purpose it for “is lexeme in language, with lexical category” (re @ItzSwirlz: I'll leave it empty for now, if the server needs a bit more storage space we can delete it) [00:07:11] That would be nice (re @Al: Maybe we’ll re-purpose it for “is lexeme in language, with lexical category”) [00:07:26] We should have a lexical category type [00:07:51] I'll create a type proposal for a few linguistic enums soon [00:11:38] Fine… I’m not convinced we should replicate Wikidata’s ontology, though 🤔 (re @Feeglgeef: I'll create a type proposal for a few linguistic enums soon) [00:17:46] Having a Wikidata item reference makes more sense but will be very intimidating to a user with 100,000,000 options you have to search through instead of <10 to select (re @Al: Fine… I’m not convinced we should replicate Wikidata’s ontology, though 🤔) [00:18:47] All of the enums would have a Wikidata item reference inside of them and that converted item reference will be type converted to [00:31:28] Yeah, I don’t have a sense of what a good solution would be. I’d be surprised if there were fewer than ten across all the world’s languages, however. (re @Feeglgeef: Having a Wikidata item reference makes more sense but will be very intimidating to a user with 100,000,000 options you have to s...) [00:32:02] For grammatical categories? (re @Al: Yeah, I don’t have a sense of what a good solution would be. I’d be surprised if there were fewer than ten across all the world’...) [00:32:12] Is there like a list [00:36:40] From my quick reading it's completely open to every Wikidata item [00:49:27] Not that I know of. Theoretically, it depends on the language. (re @Feeglgeef: Is there like a list) [09:13:46] if you speak of *lexical category* there is a lot of lists, independant of languages and often short, and mostly agreeing more or less around basic categories: noun, verb, adverb, adjective, article, pronoun, preposition, conjunction [09:13:46] if you speak of *grammatical features*, there is also a lot of lists, but very long, dependant of the languages and not agreeing (should you combine or go atomic for pair of number and gender?) [12:44:25] We’re talking about Lexical category as used within Wikidata lexemes. There may be Indo-European bias there; I don’t know. (re @Nicolas: if you speak of *lexical category* there is a lot of lists, independant of languages and often short, and mostly agreeing more o...) [13:07:41] hmm... I can see why you want to change it, but I'm not convinced it's the right way to fix it, because a policy or guideline that lots of people can't understand is not very sensible/helpful [13:07:42] I think a better way to try to make things more inclusive for non-english speakers would be to say that pages can be written in any language, but policies and guidelines can't be made official until they've been made into translatable pages *and* translated into other major lingua francas, so that a broader range of people can understand what's being proposed, give [13:07:42] feedback, etc [13:07:43] french, spanish, russian and arabic seem like obvious choices, but the exact list would depend on whether we have enough active editors for the language who can translate the page and help with communication between language communities (re @Al: I think we should change this: [13:07:45] “Policies and guidelines should be written in English first and then translated to other languag...) [13:22:05] (also I wouldn't say "international english" there, that's not a very clearly defined term and we should aim to write in a way that's neutral and aimed at an international audience everywhere, not just in policies/guidelines) [13:23:31] Yes, that’s why I suggested it would need to be translated into English and adopted by consensus. It could equally well be translated into any international language but, in practice, I doubt a policy would be adopted without an English translation unless it applies to only a limited set of languages. (re @Nikki: hmm... I can see why you want to change it, but I'm not [13:23:31] convinced [13:23:31] it's the right way to fix it, because a policy or guideline th...) [13:27:41] Fair point. I just meant there would be an “en” version even if the original were in some specific (ill-defined) version of English like “en-gb”. (re @Nikki: (also I wouldn't say "international english" there, that's not a very clearly defined term and we should aim to write in a way t...) [13:49:47] well, both are used in Lexemes (the first on the main lemma, the other on the forms) (re @Al: We’re talking about Lexical category as used within Wikidata lexemes. There may be Indo-European bias there; I don’t know.) [13:51:46] and AFAIK, the same categories are used in all languages (not just indo-european) [13:53:03] I agree but Al proposal is still good [13:53:04] it should be multilingual in both case, but not reason to make English first (re @Nikki: hmm... I can see why you want to change it, but I'm not convinced it's the right way to fix it, because a policy or guideline th...) [13:54:01] what I mean is that people can't follow a policy/guideline unless they can understand it, so it's not sensible to have a policy in a single language, no matter which language it's written in (and that includes english) (re @Al: Yes, that’s why I suggested it would need to be translated into English and adopted by consensus. It could equally well be trans...) [13:56:19] hmm, right now it's "English first", the proposal is "whatever language then English" so in both case, there is English [13:56:21] I see this as an improvment [13:56:22] (BTW, English is not understandable by the majority people in the planet) (re @Nikki: what I mean is that people can't follow a policy/guideline unless they can understand it, so it's not sensible to have a policy ...) [14:24:18] I don’t think that’s true. [[Wikifunctions:Naming conventions]] could easily be different for any particular language, for example. (Whether it should supersede the English version, as translated, is an open question.) (re @Nikki: what I mean is that people can't follow a policy/guideline unless they can understand it, so it's not sensible to have a policy ...) [14:28:33] there could be some differences obviously but I guess that it would be globally the same in every language (re @Al: I don’t think that’s true. [[Wikifunctions:Naming conventions]] could easily be different for any particular language, for examp...) [14:43:09] exactly, that's why I'm suggesting that translations into other major lingua francas should be a requirement before we even consider saying something is a policy/guideline. focusing so much on the initial language feels like we're paying too attention to the wrong thing, it shouldn't even matter how something starts, only what it's like when we accept it as a [14:43:09] policy/guideline (re [14:43:10] @Nicolas: hmm, right now it's "English first", the proposal is "whatever language then English" so in both case, there is English [14:43:12] I see th...) [14:50:12] wikidata did that and it's really a pain. the documentation should say the same thing in each language, so that everyone has the same information. that doesn't mean we can't have different conventions for different languages (re @Al: I don’t think that’s true. [[Wikifunctions:Naming conventions]] could easily be different for any particular language, for examp...) [14:51:47] How about [14:51:48] “Policies and guidelines can be written in any natural language. Translations into major languages should be a high priority. Once translated, one version should be adopted by consensus as the authoritative version on which other language versions should be based.” [14:53:50] like it's still useful for english speakers to know they shouldn't apply english capitalisation to spanish, and for spanish speakers to know they shouldn't apply spanish capitalisation to english (re @Nikki: wikidata did that and it's really a pain. the documentation should say the same thing in each language, so that everyone has the...) [15:09:19] that doesn't really make sense to me either, you have to pick an authoritative version first in order to translate it, it wouldn't make any sense to have the authoritative version in a language that most people can't translate from, and I don't think it makes sense to call something a policy/guideline before it's adopted as one (re @Al: How about [15:09:19] “Policies and guidelines can be written in any natural language. Translations into major languages should be a high pr...) [15:57:46] Well, if it wouldn’t make any sense to choose some particular version as the authoritative version, then that is unlikely to be the consensus. [15:57:48] “Policies and guidelines can be drafted in any natural language. Translations into major languages should be a high priority. Once translated, one version should be adopted by consensus as the authoritative version and subsequent translations should be based on this version.”? (re @Nikki: that doesn't really make sense to me either, you have to pick an authoritative [15:57:48] version f [15:57:49] irst in order to translate it, it wouldn...) [18:57:05] I'm not so sure about needing all of those. I think we should require: [18:57:06] English [18:57:07] And at least 2 of: [18:57:09] French [18:57:11] Russian [18:57:12] Spanish [18:57:13] Chinese [18:57:15] Hindi [18:57:17] Arabic (re @Nikki: hmm... I can see why you want to change it, but I'm not convinced it's the right way to fix it, because a policy or guideline th...) [19:01:15] And English is automatically the authoritative version [19:02:24] I'm also not too sure about not starting in English [19:02:45] All of the communication around the project happens in English