[10:54:31] Actually, it looks like we cannot traverse the Lexeme data to get to the adjective. We can get from Q35 to L252308 or L34527, but L252311 doesn't link to the original item, it links to one of those lexemes, and we can't search for lexeme backlinks... Any ideas? (re @u99of9: Agreed. I like the way it was set up, but the compositions are lacking at the moment.) [10:59:18] Hi, I started editing AV after visiting the workshop during Wikimania. Is the project stable enough to create a lot of articles or should I wait a little longer? Or in other words: does it make sense to create hundreds of articles about cities, federal states and other basic things? Is there a plan what to prioritise? [11:01:12] Cities and other basic geographical things are fine, feel free to edit! [11:01:13] There is no reuser yet, so, to me, what makes sense is to learn the system and how to improve the building blocks. No rush at all to mass create articles with only the functions available now. (re @stergro: Hi, I started editing AV after visiting the workshop during Wikimania. Is the project stable enough to create a lot of articles ...) [11:01:14] We'd prefer if you made a few that are as good as you can make them. You'll find yourself limited by the functions available at the moment. As new functions come on board, revising hundreds of articles is a bit tiresome. [11:02:45] I see this modeling in a few items: L39152-S1 (re @u99of9: Actually, it looks like we cannot traverse the Lexeme data to get to the adjective. We can get from Q35 to L252308 or L34527, bu...) [11:03:40] Thanks, that's exactly what Yi wanted to know. I will focus on learning the system and improving a few articles close to my heart then. (re @u99of9: We'd prefer if you made a few that are as good as you can make them. You'll find yourself limited by the functions available at ...) [11:03:56] A great infobox for places would be awesome. (re @stergro: Hi, I started editing AV after visiting the workshop during Wikimania. Is the project stable enough to create a lot of articles ...) [11:04:38] Yes, that's what I'm seeing a lot too. Because the destination link is another lexeme instead of an item, we can't go backward using Z6830. I've started writing a feature request. (re @Jan_ainali: I see this modeling in some lexemes: L39152-S1) [11:05:31] I am also an advocate for multilingual infoboxes in Wikipedia, so working on this makes a lot of sense for me. (re @Jan_ainali: A great infobox for places would be awesome.) [11:06:13] I will look into it later today. [11:07:49] In terms of priorities, I think close to your heart is perfect actually. I picked Q408 but then realised that it's already present in almost all Wikipedias, so it's not actually that useful. Whereas @feedmepaperr picked Q17198982, which has gaps in most Wikipedias, so is really useful. It's also done quite well, so is a good example to get ideas from. (re @stergro: [11:07:50] Thanks, that's [11:07:50] exactly what I wanted to know. I will focus on learning the system and improving a few articles close to my heart...) [11:20:06] T433966 (re @u99of9: Yes, that's what I'm seeing a lot too. Because the destination link is another lexeme instead of an item, we can't go backward u...) [11:24:40] Wouldn't a function similar to Z27327 using P8471 instead of P5137 (and the country as input) work? (re @u99of9: Yes, that's what I'm seeing a lot too. Because the destination link is another lexeme instead of an item, we can't go backward u...) [11:26:36] Z27327 is ultimately a composition of Z6830, which can only take a QID as input, not an LID. But yes, that's what I want to do. [11:28:28] But the Qid for the country must be the original input, right? (re @u99of9: Z27327 is ultimately a composition of Z6830, which can only take a QID as input, not an LID. But yes, that's what I want to do.) [11:29:22] True. But P8471 only links to LIDs. [11:30:20] Ah, I missed that, sorry! I only glance and it looked like it linked to the item. (re @u99of9: True. But P8471 only links to LIDs.) [11:43:48] By the way you provoked this! (Although I'm still very glad we had the English fragments in place when the en-wiki inquisition arrived.) (re @Jan_ainali: And I strongly believe that the project quicker would build more complex and complete articles if English also looked for lexeme...) [11:45:12] oh I just picked that cuz I like that place (re @u99of9: In terms of priorities, I think close to your heart is perfect. I picked Q408 but then realised that it's already present in alm...) [11:52:19] I'd say that if you want to create many similar articles, it maybe makes sense to create a function with parameters that does everything instead of copying a complex composition to every article. (re @stergro: Hi, I started editing AV after visiting the workshop during Wikimania. Is the project stable enough to create a lot of articles ...) [11:52:51] But I have almost no experience at actually doing it, so I might be wrong. [11:55:04] Sometimes, but there are two issues. First, bundled complex calls make timeouts more likely. Second, it reduces the freedom of later editors who might want to rearrange or customise the sequence of fragments to tell their city's story more effectively. (re @amire80: I'd say that if you want to create many similar articles, it maybe makes sense to create a function [11:55:04] with parameters that does ev...) [11:59:14] (Oh, but I'm not favouring copying a complex composition either. I think the best is multiple single calls to single fragments that can later be arranged.) [21:05:44] Australia (almost) renders for the first time in a month!