[06:46:38] I checked the Abstract Data Toolforge site the other day, and looked up the statistics for Filipino language (https://abstract-data.toolforge.org/?lang=tl). It says that 116 abstract articles can fully render in Filipino, but it doesn't give me a list of those 116 articles. [06:50:21] The only information the site gives me is a list of configurations/labels/lexemes/implementations to fix. [07:06:58] I'm not checking all 2000+ abstract articles to see if they can render in Filipino or not; I want the list of 116 articles so that I can test them in Abstract Wikipedia. Can I submit an issue to Wikimedia Phabricator? [07:13:14] This looks to be the project: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/tool-abstract-data/ (re @Earldridge Jazzed: I'm not checking all 2000+ abstract articles to see if they can render in Filipino or not; I want the list of 116 articles so th...) [09:32:16] @davidsantamariame (re @Earldridge Jazzed: I'm not checking all 2000+ abstract articles to see if they can render in Filipino or not; I want the list of 116 articles so th...) [09:53:55] It says 2 of them are not already on the Tagalog wiki: https://abstract.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q30974 https://abstract.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q915 . But realistically not many functions have been configured to work in Tagalog yet (https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Catalogue/Natural_language_operations/Tagalog), so we can't expect any articles more than a [09:53:55] sentence or two to [09:53:55] fully render. (re @Earldridge Jazzed: I checked the Abstract Data Toolforge site the other day, and looked up the statistics for Filipino language. It says that 116 a...) [09:56:16] But I agree it would be good to be able to click to see the list of 116. [11:16:06] I didn't really tried it yet but I see that the help button (top right) is linking to a page that doesn't exist yet... (re @amire80: The new Special:FunctionUsage feature is quite fascinating) [11:22:53] A direct link from any function to that special page would be cool. [11:46:32] Yes, +1000 [11:46:33] And more than a link, maybe a button or something even more visible (re @Jan_ainali: A direct link from any function to that special page would be cool.) [11:47:26] It would be a fairly straightforward gadget to create, but I think this should be native. [11:48:29] or from What links here? (re @Jan_ainali: A direct link from any function to that special page would be cool.) [11:50:05] There too perhaps, but I argue that this is more interesting. In a sense, perhaps the results should just be transcluded in the bottow of the function page just like how usage of files are on Commons. THat way one wouldn't need to click at all. (re @Al: or from What links here?) [11:50:06] Could be also there but it needs way more visible (re @Al: or from What links here?) [11:53:11] Maybe, but it’s only one kind of use: it doesn’t cover direct AW or WF use. (re @Jan_ainali: There too perhaps, but I argue that this is more interesting. In a sense, perhaps the results should just be transcluded in the ...) [11:54:34] Perhaps not WF, but AW. Or am I reading this wrong? https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Special:FunctionUsage?function=Z37071 (re @Al: Maybe, but it’s only one kind of use: it doesn’t cover direct AW or WF use.) [11:55:12] True and it should be added latter, [11:55:13] For now we should make visible what we already have (re @Al: Maybe, but it’s only one kind of use: it doesn’t cover direct AW or WF use.) [12:00:39] No, I think you’re right. Maybe the page itself is technically incorrect, or maybe it’s just unhelpful, with regard to AW. [12:00:40] “This page lists the pages, on this and other wikis, that embed a given Function using the `{{#function:}}`parser function.” [12:00:42] It contains a link equivalent to What links here, so maybe it should replace that on function pages? (re @Jan_ainali: Perhaps not WF, but AW. Or am I reading this wrong? https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Special:FunctionUsage?function=Z37071) [12:31:31] Not replace, this tool can still be useful, especially for non-mainspace pages [12:31:31] And this page is hidden (which is logical, it's not often used or needed) which is not a good place for the new tool (it will be often used) (re @Al: No, I think you’re right. Maybe the page itself is technically incorrect, or maybe it’s just unhelpful, with regard to AW. [12:31:33] “Thi...) [12:46:10] Wow - that links to https://abstract.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q37530492 which is a family name not a planet! This is not the first AW article that wrote about the wrong topic with the same name. (re @Jan_ainali: Perhaps not WF, but AW. Or am I reading this wrong? https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Special:FunctionUsage?function=Z37071) [12:46:44] Q37530492 Q319 [13:46:55] What can we do about it? We could encourage a WD short description call, I suppose, maybe with a Boolean toggle for display, so we can toggle it off for local editions? I think every AW article should have a link to its WD item in any event. (re @u99of9: Wow - that links to https://abstract.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q37530492 which is a family name not a planet! This is not the [13:46:55] first AW ...) [13:52:18] Sounds interesting. Be on the lookout for QID dropdown picker errors. I've sometimes come back to an item I picked and it has been reset to the first option. I can't be sure yet. Apparently I was in such a hurry I picked 4/8 planets wrong!? https://abstract.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q544&diff=15417&oldid=15413 I wonder if there's one of those scenarios when if [13:52:19] the editor is [13:52:19] faster than the JS, it can go wrong. Or maybe I somehow needed to secure my choice each time, but neglected it?? [13:52:21] great ideas! [13:52:22] and on a less technical side, we should leave a message to the person who made the mistake [13:52:24] also, probably delete the page (not sure we can improve much here) (re @Al: What can we do about it? We could encourage a WD short description call, I suppose, maybe with a Boolean toggle for display, so ...) [13:53:24] “More haste, less speed!” 😏 (re @u99of9: Sounds interesting. Be on the lookout for QID dropdown picker errors. I've sometimes come back to an item I picked and it has be...) [14:07:10] Rather than a simple list of links, perhaps the linked items should check themselves against WD for an appropriate statement, displaying the item description if absent, linked to the WD item#PID? (re @u99of9: Sounds interesting. Be on the lookout for QID dropdown picker errors. I've sometimes come back to an item I picked and it has be...) [14:10:32] I'm not sure in what context you mean? (re @Al: Rather than a simple list of links, perhaps the linked items should check themselves against WD for an appropriate statement, di...) [14:11:51] [[:abstract:Q544]] (re @u99of9: I'm not sure in what context you mean?) [14:13:16] Okay, you mean I should have used another function to make the list, then supplied some kind of PID query so it could do an additional check of the items I chose, just to end up showing the same link if I chose right? [14:14:37] Oh, no, maybe I understand. [14:14:57] Yes. But actually to provide a link to WD that actually confirms the asserted link or allows its addition. (re @u99of9: Okay, you mean I should have used another function to make the list, then supplied some kind of PID query so it could do an addi...) [14:16:39] I think the overhead of searching through the entire item for every qid on the list would be a bit wasteful. I think we can rely on editors to find this kind of error, because every different viewing language gets a different shot at finding an inconsistency. [14:17:03] For now I'm focused on finding what I think is a selector bug... [14:23:00] I think every editorial assertion requires a verifiable source. I think it makes more sense to add references to WD statements rather than ad-hoc AW function calls. (re @u99of9: I think the overhead of searching through the entire item for every qid on the list would be a bit wasteful. I think we can rely...) [14:54:55] Yes, just go ahead boldly. (re @Winston_Sung: I'm thinking of placing a "please use non-mixed-script language" warning, especially for reducing misplaced labels/descriptions,...) [15:08:55] Where did we end up with this? I’m thinking we could always link to the Wikipedia page for the view language, if it has a wikilink, and also provide an Abstract Wikipedia reference. But if there is no such wikilink, we provide an AW link with a Wikidata reference. That would tend to obscure redlinks for languages with a lot of local articles, but perhaps the AW link could [15:08:55] be re [15:08:55] d? (Or we view in a language variant that has no Wikipedia, like en-gb 😢) (re @Mateo: We've been using Z32428 to create hyperlinks to other articles. The problem with this is that if we embed it into other Wikipedi...) [15:37:17] FYI, on svwiki village pump people are reacting to the AW sitelinks showing up in articles when going there mostly just show errors that things can't be rendered. [15:43:33] These would be manually added links? I don’t think we have *T421151 *live yet, and there are unanswered comments there. (re @Jan_ainali: FYI, on svwiki village pump people are reacting to the AW sitelinks showing up in articles when going there mostly just show err...) [15:45:21] Yes: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q30&diff=prev&oldid=2476436972 (re @Al: These would be manually added links? I don’t think we have T421151 live yet, and there are unanswered comments there.) [15:52:57] 🤔 It does almost render in Dutch. Personally, I’d prefer some quality threshold, but that’s not envisaged in the ticket 🤷‍♂️ (re @Jan_ainali: Yes: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q30&diff=prev&oldid=2476436972) [15:54:48] We'll likely hide the link locally with css for non-logged in users for now. [15:55:11] I’d forgotten where I raised it, but I just found my comment here T421151#11866104 (re @Mateo: We've been using Z32428 to create hyperlinks to other articles. The problem with this is that if we embed it into other Wikipedi...) [21:47:33] Are you willing to consider a non-error call to action for missing lexemes? (Like we have for missing labels/configs etc) That is the main source of errors I've seen in sv. (re @Jan_ainali: FYI, on svwiki village pump people are reacting to the AW sitelinks showing up in articles when going there mostly just show err...) [21:51:33] Al GrounderUK Manual linking! (re @feedmepaperr: over a third of all abstract wikipedia articles were not connected to wikidata items. I am proud to announce that I have fixed t...) [21:54:36] Presumably you have to manually unlink the ones you delete? (re @u99of9: Al GrounderUK Manual linking!) [21:54:55] Good point. I haven't done that to date!