Wikifunctions:Project chat
Welcome to the Project chat, a place to discuss any and all aspects of Wikifunctions: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Other places to find help:
- Wikifunctions:Administrators' noticeboard
- Wikifunctions:Report a technical problem
- Wikifunctions:FAQ
 | SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days. |
| edit |
|
|---|
| Archives |
Android app for Wikifunctions
Hi, is there an Android app for Wikifunctions? How does it work? I have been advised that there is no infrastructure for push notifications for Android apps for sister wikis and I would be interested to know more. Related: phab:T378545. Thanks! Gryllida (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, Kiwix has Wikifunctions. Otherwise, I don't think there is an Android app. Feeglgeef (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nevermind, it does not. Feeglgeef (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Gryllida There is still no app for Wikifunctions, and there are no current plans to develop one. The project itself is still building up its features, so we are focusing on giving new functions (literally) to the community for the time being. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- imo an app to edit wikifunctions seems a bit unnecessary especially given the complexity of how functions work. Zippybonzo (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would disagree here. Apps would allow for many improvements. I do agree that it is a low priority, but it should happen. Feeglgeef (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't say we're not going to work on one. I'm saying that currently we have no plans on developing one, because we have other priorities at the moment. Also, creating a mobile app would also involve other departments at the Foundation, so it's no small feat. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. I was more replying to Zippybonzo's comment than yours. Feeglgeef (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't say we're not going to work on one. I'm saying that currently we have no plans on developing one, because we have other priorities at the moment. Also, creating a mobile app would also involve other departments at the Foundation, so it's no small feat. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would disagree here. Apps would allow for many improvements. I do agree that it is a low priority, but it should happen. Feeglgeef (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- imo an app to edit wikifunctions seems a bit unnecessary especially given the complexity of how functions work. Zippybonzo (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
New Implementation of is a palindrome (Z10096)
I created a new implementation Javascript-Implementierung von "ist Palindrom" (Z19595) and a new test "Hä, Bierbrei? Bäh!" (Z19593) for is a palindrome (Z10096). Is there a request page where I can apply for the connection?
There are two connected tests:
- "eěe" from UTF-8 hex is a palindrome (Z10551)
- is 👨👩👧👦 palindrome (Z10556)
which should IMHO have a result of "true" (see discussion) and are set to false. Can anyone confirm and change this? --Balû (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello! I've connected the implementation and test for you. Feel free to send me a message on my talk page and I can connect something for you. Feeglgeef (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- You can make requests here:Wikifunctions:Community portal#Tasks listed by users (click the reply link). GrounderUK (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Deletion or recategorization of WF: Notability
This is listed as a policy, but contains policy that is no longer enforced. I would recommend recategorizing it as an essay or deleting it entirely. Feeglgeef (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- WF:NOT actually directly contradicts this. Feeglgeef (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's a draft, although I think notability isn't really needed, and we can just do deletion discussions fwiw, notability for functions seems especially subjective. Zippybonzo (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's not that we don't think it's needed, it's that it's contradictory to other policies. I think the Policy category needs to be removed from it at the minimum. Feeglgeef (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that category should be removed. It is not a policy. --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Removed the category, given the page is a very short draft it should never have been tagged as such without a discussion here beforehand. Zippybonzo (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that category should be removed. It is not a policy. --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's not that we don't think it's needed, it's that it's contradictory to other policies. I think the Policy category needs to be removed from it at the minimum. Feeglgeef (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Messed up type of output
Hi, I'm so sorry to be a bother but could someone delete this function page I created? floor of rational number (Z20032): returns the floor of a rational number
I accidentally set the output to a natural number instead of an integer. I don't see anywhere I can correct it so I think it has to be deleted? I got too excited about rational numbers, really sorry about that.
(Also, while I'm here asking for help, how would I go about getting the numerator and denominator directly in Composition? I tried to do that first but got a bit stuck and switched to JS)
Moon motif (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- You can change the return type by editing the function https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Z20032?action=edit. I’ve already done that. The test cases fail because they still expect a natural number. You can change those too, if you like, but I think this function duplicates truncate a rational number (Z19682), in which case it’s likely to be deleted eventually. You can request this yourself at Wikifunctions:Requests for deletions
- There are functions to extract the numerator and denominator (and the sign). You can see those in the second list of same Rational number object, list composition (Z19911). (In the first list, you can see corresponding examples of the general solution.) There are also functions for extracting the numerator and denominator of the simplified representation: numerator of simplified rational number (Z19722) and denominator of simplified rational number (Z19724).
- I’m happy to hear that you’re excited about rational numbers! If you need any more help, please don’t hesitate to ask. It would be interesting to hear, some time, how you “got a bit stuck” in the first place, as feedback into our ongoing usability improvements. GrounderUK (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Floor always rounds down right? So for negative numbers it's not a duplicate of truncate, which rounds toward zero. 99of9 (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Thanks! GrounderUK (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh! I didn't realize i could just edit it, haha. I think I saw a discussion here earlier about needing to delete a function for a different type and must have thought it would also apply to me. As for getting a bit stuck, I was confused because I thought I would be able to use the "Argument reference" directly to access the numerator, denominator, and sign of the rational number like a kind of "dot notation" (i.e., fraction.numerator or fraction.sign). Though, with the benefit of a good sleep, I can see why a function to get the numerator and denominator makes sense. Thanks for your help! Moon motif (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- The correct function if you wanted to do this was Value by key (Z803). The numerator/denominator functions serve as helpful abstractions to make it easier. IMO Value by key should have a greater suggestion/presence in the UI, given it's use. Thanks. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Either way is fine by me. That’s why I favour using both in an equality function implementation like same Rational number object, list composition (Z19911), so people can take their pick. Value by key (Z803) has the drawback that the Key reference field is generally disabled the first time you select it in an implementation or test case (the ticket for that is phab:T360580). GrounderUK (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- The correct function if you wanted to do this was Value by key (Z803). The numerator/denominator functions serve as helpful abstractions to make it easier. IMO Value by key should have a greater suggestion/presence in the UI, given it's use. Thanks. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Floor always rounds down right? So for negative numbers it's not a duplicate of truncate, which rounds toward zero. 99of9 (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Discord
Thoughts on a Wikifunctions discord server or a channel in the Wikimedia discord? Personally I'm leaning for a whole server because the project is quite abstract, but just wanted to gather some thoughts here. Zippybonzo (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- The Telegram is really active, I don't see a need for a Discord. Feeglgeef (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- There's a telegram??!! News to me lol. Zippybonzo (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- You should join it :). It's at [1] Feeglgeef (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is linked on Wikifunctions:Main Page… Always has been! GrounderUK (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, there's a link to a link on the Main Page, but still. It's also in the section that's looked past without thinking. Feeglgeef (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- There's a telegram??!! News to me lol. Zippybonzo (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Search for functions, excluding test cases
I tried to search for functions involving ISBN but the result contains both actual functions such as is valid ISBN, Python (Z16842) and test cases such as 9992158107 is valid ISBN-10 (Z11708). Is there or will there be a way to differentiate both in search? JakobVoss (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not currently, but it's planed in the future. Thanks! Feeglgeef (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- You can also put "Z8" in "exactly this text" in the advanced search menu, but if an object mentions Z8 and is not a function for some reason, it will still be show, but it works as a solution for the time being. Feeglgeef (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not in current plans (No current plans / external) but being looked at again. GrounderUK (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's in Longer-term plans in WF:Status, so I guess that should be changed? Feeglgeef (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Possibly. The ticket’s still open, so I suggest we leave Current status as it is until we get some response from the team. I’ll add it to the To-do list below. GrounderUK (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's in Longer-term plans in WF:Status, so I guess that should be changed? Feeglgeef (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Try
- https://www.wikifunctions.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&ns0=1&profile=advanced&search=ISBN+Z8K1&title=Special%3ASearch
- Adding “Z8K1” will tend to exclude objects that are not of type Function (Z8). (Similarly, adding “Z14K1” will tend to return only objects of type Implementation (Z14) and adding “Z20K1” will tend to return only objects of type Test case (Z20).) GrounderUK (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- You can get even more accurate if you have it match exactly '"Z2K2": { "Z1K1": "Z8"' Feeglgeef (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! If every ZObjects must have Type, filtering by type seems an important criteria for search. I managed to get a list of types via https://www.wikifunctions.org/w/index.php?search=%22Z1K1%3AZ4%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 JakobVoss (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. We do have Special:ListObjectsByType and type-specific lists like Special:ListObjectsByType/Z4 but these cannot be filtered or searched yet. Your approach using a (case insensitive) z1k1:z… search term is probably as good as it gets currently, being both reliable and relatively simple. Thank you for sharing! GrounderUK (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Added page Wikifunctions:Find.
- Updated tip in Wikifunctions:Status and copied to new page.
- Add comment to phab:T271963
- To do:
- Link Current status page to Wikifunctions:Find
- Add Wikifunctions:Find to Wikifunctions:Community portal
- Clarify status of T271963 and update Current status if appropriate
- GrounderUK (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. We do have Special:ListObjectsByType and type-specific lists like Special:ListObjectsByType/Z4 but these cannot be filtered or searched yet. Your approach using a (case insensitive) z1k1:z… search term is probably as good as it gets currently, being both reliable and relatively simple. Thank you for sharing! GrounderUK (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! If every ZObjects must have Type, filtering by type seems an important criteria for search. I managed to get a list of types via https://www.wikifunctions.org/w/index.php?search=%22Z1K1%3AZ4%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 JakobVoss (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- You can get even more accurate if you have it match exactly '"Z2K2": { "Z1K1": "Z8"' Feeglgeef (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #182 is out: WordGraph release; New Special page: list functions by tests; new type for day of the year, and much more
There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!
In this issue, we discuss the implications of the release of Google Zurich's WordGraph dataset, we introduce a new special page, support for other Wikidata statements and a new type (day of Roman year), and finally we take a look at the latest software developments.
Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!
Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Update "Functions to try out"
Currently, the "Functions to try out" section of the main page has functions that are quite old. The one most recently created was made in March. I think we should replace the contents with the previous functions of the week. This would direct new users to our current work with Wikidata lexeme (Z6005), Rational number (Z19677), Gregorian year (Z20159), Day of Roman year (Z20342), where they are currently directed to string functions, which, while important to include, misrepresent the project and its current status. Thanks! Feeglgeef (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)