[00:47:51] I think it's fair to say there is plenty of scope for improvement! Perhaps you'll need to bring the Helsinki Linguistics community along for the ride? This is a snippet of https://abstract.wikipedia.org/view/fi/Q408 : https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/bridgebot/7d873414/file_83748.jpg [00:59:15] Yeah, I'm basically the first one to dip my toe into this, so I'll get myself immersed in all of this and tutor other interested parties. [00:59:17] Hopefully we won't come across any system limitations along the way as aspects of being a synthetic language and agglutination will be a wild ride :) (re @u99of9: I think it's fair to say there is plenty of scope for improvement! Perhaps you'll need to bring the Helsinki Linguistics communi...) [03:34:16] I’m working with @Permik on Wikidata lexical data (re @u99of9: I think it's fair to say there is plenty of scope for improvement! Perhaps you'll need to bring the Helsinki Linguistics communi...) [03:46:54] Instructing (re @cvictorovich: I’m working with @Permik on Wikidata lexical data) [04:45:55] Because they share the same structure, making the read and display functions was easy: Z41760 Z41757 . Please connect. (re @vrandecic: Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter 264 [04:45:56] * Your code can now call back to the Wikidata fetch functions [04:45:57] * Recent Changes in the softwar...) [06:09:25] Does this replicate for anyone else? It seems to happen to me even when I do this whole process slowly. T437287 (re @u99of9: AHA! I can finally prove it was not my fault that I pick Wikidata items faster than the system can keep up:) [07:35:29] done (re @Ameisenigel: And another request for staff assistence: Z111 and Z861 have tests that could be connected) [07:41:05] done. I wonder if for specific date ranges we should add an O.S. or something to the date, to be able to tell Julian from Gregorian. (re @u99of9: Because they share the same structure, making the read and display functions was easy: Z41760 Z41757 . Please connect.) [07:44:14] Yes, I think we will want something like that eventually, but I didn't want to make that easy change to the display until the read can handle it coming in. I'm also not sure of the usual conventions, and whether the abbreviation is different for every language. (re @vrandecic: done. I wonder if for specific date ranges we should add an O.S. or something to the date, [07:44:14] to be able to [07:44:15] tell Julian from Gregor...) [07:45:58] More importantly we need an actual converter, so the fragment functions can show both when the Wikidata choice is non-standard. [10:28:34] I’d avoid using “old style” because it’s ambiguous. In England, prior to 1752 (or 1600 in Scotland) the year number didn’t officially change until 25th March (Julian). Technically, in England, 1st January 1752 (New Style) was a Julian date (proleptic Gregorian: 1752-01-12), one year after 1st January 1750 (Old Style). I think… 🤷‍♂️ (re @u99of9: Yes, I think w message> [10:28:35] e will want something like that eventually, but I didn't want to make that easy change to the display until the re...) [10:30:39] My thought was to add "(Julian)" for English. [11:09:36] Which is better, but in the proleptic Julian calendar, the confusion about the year remains. So it might be something like 1st January 1750/51 (Julian) through to 24th March 1750/51 (Julian), followed by 25th March 1751 (Julian) through to 31st December 1751 (Julian) followed by 1st January 1752 (Julian), or just 1st January 1751/52 if we’re not being too pedantic about [11:09:36] the for [11:09:36] mal non-existence of 1st January 1751 (old style) through to 24th March 1751 (old style) in England and the British colonies of the time. (re @u99of9: My thought was to add "(Julian)" for English.) [11:19:47] Maybe I'll leave this to you. To me they sounds like whole different calendar systems (Scottish Julian), (English Julian), etc. I'm just glad we can represent pre-1500s where there's no ambiguity I hope. (re @Al: Which is better, but in the proleptic Julian calendar, the confusion about the year remains. So it might be something like 1st J...) [13:12:13] Is there a list of functions that are not in the catalogue, i.e. it lists functions that are not mentioned in any page with the prefix "Wikifunctions:Catalogue"? [13:13:11] No, sorry, the catalogue is hard to maintain with so many functions. I've mostly switched to searching many alternative labels. [13:13:40] Are you after something in particular? [13:16:36] Luvoth I just saw that there is an Igbo event organised on 25th September. See [https://abstract.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia:For_interested_communities/Igbo] [13:26:05] NLG functions, because I make Abstract Wikipedia articles. For example, Z27243 is not in the catalogue. I do my best to know the functions that are available by using the "Recent changes" page. [[User:Jsamwrites]] and [[User:Theki/functions]] have useful lists of NLG functions. See also [[Wikifunctions:NLG functions]]. (re @u99of9: Are you after something [13:26:05] in particular?) [13:28:16] Don't use the monolingual version if there is an HTML version Z37065 available (search the same name again without monolingual). I'm not sure if it's in the catalogue either though. [13:29:41] which means most of Theki's NLG table is out of date (re @u99of9: Don't use the monolingual version if there is an HTML version Z37065 available (search the same name again without monolingual)....) [14:09:44] Oh, tons of ambiguity then too… [14:09:45] But having regard to [[:en:MOS:OSNS]]: [14:09:47] “For either the Julian or Gregorian calendars, the beginning of the year should be treated as 1 January even if a different start-of-year date was observed in the place being discussed.” [14:09:48] “If an article contains Julian calendar dates after 4 October 1582 (as in the October Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution)), or if a start-of-year date other than 1 January was in force in the place being discussed, or both, a footnote should be provided on the first usage, explaining the calendar usage adopted for the article. The calendar usage [14:09:48] should [14:09:50] be compatible with this guideline.” (re @u99of9: Maybe I'll leave this to you. To me they sound like whole different calendar systems (Scottish Julian), (English Julian), etc. I...) [14:23:19] * phschafft waves. [14:23:32] good morning. closing my eyes in fact made the sun spin real fast! [14:37:57] so, trying to follow up: as of my current understanding a ZID can refer to anything, but generally it is something I would know from generic programming context: type, function, constant, ...; is that correct so far? [15:47:40] yes. but note that the function declaration and the implementation are separated, and that one function declaration can have several implementations attached to it. also, a test is its own object, unlike in most programming languages. [17:48:33] * phschafft nods. [17:48:41] that sounds right. [17:48:53] they are after all own things. [17:49:34] what I wonder is why for example for the languages new identifiers are used, and not the corresponding wikidata items?